Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockfest (2nd nomination)

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. This is not a "speedy" delete, as no criteria fits, however future recreations that are substantially similar can be speedied under G4 and the title possibly salted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cockfest[edit]

Unencyclopedic, non-notable neologism with unreliable references. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Agree with nom, was preparing the AfD when this popped up. Dayewalker (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion would this be speedied? Because the last deletion was not taken pursuant to a deletion discussion (the article was speedied while at AfD), G4 does not apply (it seems also that this version is non-trivially different from that that was deleted, but we needn't reach that issue, AFAICT), and I can't imagine that any other CSD should fit. Joe 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "references" are self published. Is salting required?Vulture19 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also like to add i've never heard it called a "cockfest" before, the more common term would be "sausagefest". TJ Spyke 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is my first article on this wiki (I am familiar with wikis elsewhere) why are you wanting to delete it so much? I thought Wikipedia was not censored?--What Wat? (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia isn't censored, that's not the issue with this article. It's a question of notability and no reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedily, for lack of reliable sourcing for this neologism. I'd like to see a full discussion so it can be left alone or G4'ed in the future. The author's assertion of never being on Wikipedia before is likely untrue, given his intimate knowledge of process, unless he's been somewhere else which mimics our Speedy and Prod processes, but there's no clear evidence he's ban- or block-evading. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY and WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, my friend said this phrase. He also said "I love you" to me the other night, in a platonic way. This really touched me. Just made me think about how far I've come.--What Wat? (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a dictionary among other things. --^StormRider 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure dictionary material. What's the holdup? Peter ^Isotalo 09:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the above for my reasoning: It's been speedied already, so it really ought to be dealt with here, so it can be left alone or G4'ed in the future. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2009 (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.