Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliamentary tiddlywinks
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 speedy deleted; self-admitted vandalism by User:BasilSorbie. Much time and energy wasted by all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary tiddlywinks[edit]
- Parliamentary tiddlywinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Neologism? No relevants ghits for the term; not mentioned in the online source given in the article; article itself is a cut-and-paste of Parliamentary ping-pong, which is a real thing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Vandalism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as vandalism.--Boffob (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator has no history of vandalism, though. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what should that be?? Its definetly not a notable article. abf /talk to me/ 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as a non-notable neologism. But if the text is simply a cut and paste of portions of an existing, serious article, I am not sure I could call it vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am an expert in both Parliamentary procedure and tiddlywinks. This is a hoax. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G3) as parliamentary bollocks. MuZemike (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wrote this hoax article for off-Wikipedia reasons. Sorry. Won't do it again. BasilSorbie (talk) 12:04, 14 November 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.