Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly Tree

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. Dakota 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Tree

Almost an A1 speedy, but I wouldn't be surprised if this "tree" were documented as a piece of folklore. Let's give it 5 days on AfD for someone to come up with sources, keeping in mind a possible merger to ugliness. Delete unless referenced in an encyclopedic manner. GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a neologism, but a pretty old and still popular one. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per creator Lithpiperpilot 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no amount of verification or referencing will make Wikipedia any more of a dictionary and any less of an encyclopedia. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense. -Will Beback 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologistical nonsense. Eusebeus 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis that the article Open a can of Whoop Ass remains, this article should fall under the same standard.-Erikrespo 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a catagory for Fictional Trees but the Ugly Tree does not make the cut? --Milliamp 07:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, ridiculous. The term itself is insignificant, and there is no content besides definitional explanation of meaning/common usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GassyGuy 08:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense Patrick Hurston 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up nonsense. The only thing in the article that deserves mention somewhere is the ugly stick. DCEdwards1966 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up. A well sourced version in encylopedic tone shouldn't be too difficult for those with a little extra time on their hands. In its current state its completely unencyclopedic and any new version would basically require scrapping this one. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very old phrase that needs explanation in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense and article fell out of such a tree. Anomo 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Save it to BJAON ? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:48, 29 October 2006 (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.