Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark storm

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted, nonsense. Nakon 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark storm[edit]

Dark storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism? I'm not sure whether this is a hox or not, but it doesn't quite fall under "vandalism", I don't think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly falls under vandalism, and fairly offensive too. I'll speedy it. Ironholds 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 Vandalism and ... eww. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Eew indeed. Neologism that would need some kind of third-party sourcing to verify use of the term. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm adding a third eww to that mates! --Vhoscythechatter 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupid bored kids being stupid. Plus it's nothing more than a dicdef. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone tell'em to stop making shit up. Also if they're are really serious, then suggest an editor with such interests to try and cozy up with whoever contributes to eww Coprophilia.
  • Comment fourth 'ewww' - apart from that, should this really still be tagged to copy to Wiktionary ? Surely that would only apply if this was a neologism that could be verified ? CultureDrone (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this assessment. "No" to the first question and "yes" to the second. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any personal reactions aside (which should have no bearing on the deletion discussion), a gsearch isn't coming up with notability for this, even with a few key words added in.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete. Wikipedia isn't the place to ... ahem ... spread one's scatological aspirations. Banjeboi 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete indeed. Completely and utterly ridiculous. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Can't even find it on Google. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barring scatalogical fetishes, there's no evidence to back this up. Delete. -WarthogDemon 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete -- it's not even on Urban Dictionary, which is the king of Things made up in an afternoon -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:55, 7 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_storm&oldid=1142652077"