Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In my pants
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Aitias // discussion 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my pants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a myspace bulletin, and for the most part should not contain content of that type. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable "game." As the nominator states, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Although a google search of "In my pants" game had many hits, most on the first few pages were bolgs, journals, etc. I would hardly consider that to be verifiable. The article is also not written as an encyclopedia article should be; Wikipedia is not a guide. Frank AnchorTalk 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NFT. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does have a very proffesional-looking webpage, and mentions on a lot of forums. I think that this: a) does not fit WP:NFT, and b) should classify as a notable internet phenomenon, considering the number of relevant hits on google, regardless of the nature thereof. I would also like to remind you all that even if an article is written in an unencyclopedic way, that does not mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved, if the topic is notable enough, which in this case I believe it is.
Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums=not reliable, third party sources. The ability to code according to W3C guidelines=not reliable, third party sources. Google=not a way of judging notability on its own. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition: at waht point did I say that it was the way the article was written that led to me nominating it for deletion? You might need to remind Frank Anchor (although in this case I see his point) but don't be supercilious to us as a whole especially when your argument is as lacking in policy as it is. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point in the case of the forums was not that they are reliable sources, but that this cannot be deleted per WP:NFT if it is verifiably in wide use on forums and blogs. Also, let us not forget that THE ARTICLE CITES MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!!! Almost everybody seems to be ignoring that fact. And if they aren't reliable sources, then what is?Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't mentioned on MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!! OMG I CAN'T FIND THE CAPS LOCK! it cites a blog and a forum which say it was on TV. You should know that since you made it the subject of your first argumentIronholds (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I'm not voting on this sinc eI have no true opinion and I don't know enough about the subject, but you Ironholds better stop attacking S8333631 personally. There is no need to mention the caps or anything, you are just going to blow it out of proportion. If you want to win a debate act professional. Some people use caps as a legit way to emphacize, so calm down. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a personal attack at all, simply a way of pointing out how annoying it is. Yes, people use caps to emphasise something; it is advised that people do not do this. It is eye-watering, disrupts the flow of text and simply makes it appear AS THOUGH THE USER IS SHOUTING. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to back down. Ironholds does have a point, and I don't want to get into a big argument over something as minor as this.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a personal attack at all, simply a way of pointing out how annoying it is. Yes, people use caps to emphasise something; it is advised that people do not do this. It is eye-watering, disrupts the flow of text and simply makes it appear AS THOUGH THE USER IS SHOUTING. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I'm not voting on this sinc eI have no true opinion and I don't know enough about the subject, but you Ironholds better stop attacking S8333631 personally. There is no need to mention the caps or anything, you are just going to blow it out of proportion. If you want to win a debate act professional. Some people use caps as a legit way to emphacize, so calm down. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't mentioned on MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!! OMG I CAN'T FIND THE CAPS LOCK! it cites a blog and a forum which say it was on TV. You should know that since you made it the subject of your first argumentIronholds (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point in the case of the forums was not that they are reliable sources, but that this cannot be deleted per WP:NFT if it is verifiably in wide use on forums and blogs. Also, let us not forget that THE ARTICLE CITES MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!!! Almost everybody seems to be ignoring that fact. And if they aren't reliable sources, then what is?Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition: at waht point did I say that it was the way the article was written that led to me nominating it for deletion? You might need to remind Frank Anchor (although in this case I see his point) but don't be supercilious to us as a whole especially when your argument is as lacking in policy as it is. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums=not reliable, third party sources. The ability to code according to W3C guidelines=not reliable, third party sources. Google=not a way of judging notability on its own. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete see above.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, no coverage that can be relied upon. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops--hit the '!' four times instead of the '~'... Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, no RS. Lugnuts (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reminds me of adding "between the sheets" to the fortune in a fortune cookie, but not worthy of an article at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'you will die a horrible death between the sheets'.. Well the last part certainly improves it if you believe the French. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2009 (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.