Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty nasty blunt
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: Unsourced neologism. Deleted either as patent nonsense, or under snowball clause. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nasty nasty blunt[edit]
- Nasty nasty blunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Proposed for deletion twice, once with a reason of "Complete original research, no claim of notability.", second time "The article is a neologism and lacks general notability"; however, in the meanwhile an unregistered user (probably the same person as the creator) removed the deletion notice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No proof of notability. Article is written in a non suitable way for wikipedia (which isn't grounds for deletion) but appears to be a joke (which is). Alberon (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junk content at it's lowest Beeblbrox (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced and probably non-notable slang term. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scrap it; most of the content of the article (all but the leading paragraph) is unencyclopedic nonsense. Candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, original research, and general nonsense. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all of above notability reasons. Nothing links to page, which I believe reinforces the lack of notability. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While the article is somewhat humorous, it lacks notibility. Iepeulas (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utter tripe. Could be a speedy G1.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 19 February 2008 (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.