Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slidehard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slidehard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of widespread use or notability of this term. The one reference does not seem to be a significant source, and is probably not reliable. (A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom statement. This content would be more appropriate for the Urban Dictionary. - Mr X 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom … the single "reference" is a WP:SPAMLINK to a book for sale at the author's website. Happy Editing! — 108.48.215.54 (talk · contribs) _{16:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, didn't know that a show canceled years ago had enough fans still around for them to have an actual name. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment … FYI, the author of this article, Slidersfanblog (talk · contribs), has been indef blocked from editing because of their username. — 108.48.215.54 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, by me. That's how I got to this AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Solid nomination. When I did my own search I found very little. This could easily be WP:OR. The lone source the article has does not support the statement it cites, only the fact that somewhere someone had used it, possibly even user submitted content and a very dubious source. Mkdw ^talk 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.