Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner[edit]
- Winner Winner Chicken Dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unsourced slang Vegaswikian 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete but only because of lack of sources. 14,000 G-hits for such an odd(unlikely to be assembled at random) phrase indicates a reasonable probability that there are sources out there, and given the small region it is specific to, a fairly large number as well. I'd be quick to switch my delete to a keep if reliable sources could be found. i kan reed 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to source it, the place I learned about it was an online forum [1] so I don't know if that's a valid source. I'll add it anyway, just in case. By the way how can you tell it's gotten 14,000 hits? --MrCalifornia 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for details. Vegaswikian 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm afraid that's not a valid source. Typically a source is someone or something with a reputation for presenting factual information. i kan reed 06:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to source it, the place I learned about it was an online forum [1] so I don't know if that's a valid source. I'll add it anyway, just in case. By the way how can you tell it's gotten 14,000 hits? --MrCalifornia 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Transwiki. Even if relevant sources are dug up, this is little more than a dicdef, and would not belong on wikipedia in any case. If sources are found and noteability asserted, a transwiki to wictionary might be the solution. Otherwise, delete.Dr bab 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm worried about the apparent folk etymology behind it, but if it's on Wikt, then it'll work itself out. --Dennisthe2 15:27, 8 April 2007 (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.