Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zushiba day

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zushiba day
Made up and highly insignificant holiday 24.205.103.26 15:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * The article creation date, 3 days after the "holiday" date referred to by the article, strongly support this, as does the minor edit war amongst anonymous contributors, who have obviously come here from the forum concerned, no doubt after a posting drawing their attention to it. 24.205.103.26 managed, in contrast, to submit a full VFD nomination, getting the process pretty much right straight off.  Well done!  Please create an account here and contribute more. Let this also serve as a reminder that anonymity is not a bar to either nomination or voting in VFD.  It merely lends additional weight to other bad faith.  Anonymous users make hundreds of good faith contributions to Wikipedia every day. Delete. Uncle G 18:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please keep your flame wars in the forums which ignited them, unless they become culturally significant, like the ARBN debates I was involved with back in the 1990s! (Sorry, couldn't resist the inside joke.) HyperZonk 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, I created the starmen.net article. No, I did not create this article. No, I do not support this article. Also, I direct you to this thread: http://forum.starmen.net/?t=msg&th=10219 --SMWhat 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, say, as cruft? Wyss 20:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As a concerned person acting in auctoritas ex officio at the forums in question, I must register my strong desire that the actions of whatever individual was responsible for the posting of this page not be construed as representative of the qualities or attitudes of said forums in toto. With regard to the article specifically, I cannot help but observe its plenary lack of any relevance, authority, or utility, and therefore recommend it heartily for deletion. 134.39.40.29 22:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Übercruft. I am from the forums, and agree with 134.39.40.29. Potatophone 23:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)