Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocket Mumias

Add links
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Mumias[edit]

The term is so non-notable as to merit not a single Google hit; delete. Dvyost 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only is it nn, it's patently offensive. Delete. For the reference, see Mumia Abu Jamal.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, and not clever enough by half.  BD2412 talk 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, not verifiable anyway ("some underground circles" notwithstanding) --W.marsh 03:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FREE MUMIAS (to be deleted). Non-notable at best, likely unverifiable, possible hoax. Lord Bob 05:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Mumia himself coined this phrase in an effort to get the youth to continue the movement for his release. He said it live on Larry King in December 2001. --Hubris 10:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to let my idea of the plausibility of your story slide for a moment, and say simply this. The CNN transcripts page showing Larry King's programs since January 1, 2000 does not mention any such interview. I don't have time to look through the couple dozen transcripts for December 2001 to check this statement out, but if you could point out which day the broadcast occured we could all have a gander and that would be nice and verified. Howzat sound? Lord Bob 14:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Due to the inherently controversial nature of the discussion (and because of the highly sensitive and continuing litigation in the case), the transcripts from December 18, 2001 were destroyed by CNN. User:NoDisassemble 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember the similar Pocket Tubmans nonsense as well. With that in mind, this could probably be speedied as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussion above Justin Bacon 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Amren (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Doyle Brunson used this term on a World Poker Tour tournament in 1999. He was fined and reprimanded by WPT officials. --FatherSkeel 21:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Above user is also a constant vandal; Not entirely convinced FatherSkeel and Hubris are not sock puppets of each other.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 23:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • FatherSkeel's claim is a flat-out lie, anyway - I know this because I was in that 1999 World Poker Tour tournament right up to the last round, and I sat next to good ol' Doyle the entire time, and never once did he utter such a thing. Ok, I just made all that up, but it's equally plausible. :-)  BD2412 talk 06:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
        • BD, weren't you the second gunman on the grassy knoll, too? ;)  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's not acceptable to talk about a poker hand that could possibly be construed as defamatory, but it's perfectly okay to joke about the murder of one of America's great figures. Makes sense. --FatherSkeel 02:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The key difference is that Kennedy's assassination actually happened, unlike the popular usage of this term. Lord Bob 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • World War II actually happened...does that make it acceptable to joke about it? If you read the definition closely, it talked about the term being used in "underground circies." Nowhere did it say this term was in popular usage. Perhaps you should read things more closely before making such outlandish statements. --FatherSkeel 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article is utterly unverifiable, and the attempts to justify it above have proven to be either a bald-faced lie, or another statement that cannot be verified. If it is in use in underground circles, said circles are so far underground that the term might as well not exist. Lord Bob 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Raspustin, to be perfectly honest, im offended by your statement. JFK was a good man and you feel the need to mock the highest elected official in the land? If you take down this article, which is a factual statement of what many people use in Texas Hold'em Philosophy in today's 21st century, you might as well take the pages down for JFK, Lee Harvey Oswold and the entire city of Dallas for which you mock so readily. I hope that you not only get banned from wikipedia for this classless statement, but are banned from whatever ISP gives you access to the information super highway. --Hubris 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now this is starting to sound like that US Miller vs. Bud commerical: "This is a travesty! It's a sham! It's a mockery...it's a...a...a TRAVASHAMOCKERY!" That aside, you want to argue about this with me, take it to my talk page and stop cluttering up an AfD trying to defend a patently unencyclopediac statement. To even try and use a red herring to obscure the arguement is ridiculous.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 01:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Go to a poker game in Mobile, Alabama and let me know if they don't throw the term around liberally. Then you can say it's utterly unverifiable. FatherSkeel 20:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • See, "having to send a Wikipedian to play poker in that specific Mobile, Alabama underground circle" counts as "functionally unverifiable". Especially when the other attempts at verification are bullshit. Lord Bob 02:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A look at the edit histories of the two pro votes here shows some interesting similarities in contributions. See a rundown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Known as S. --Dvyost 02:23, 13 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pocket_Mumias&oldid=1142238873"