Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French military victories (practical joke)

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French military victories (practical joke)[edit]

Unnotable, intresically boderline to French bashing in the first degree, of very mediocre interest at best, and no concievable expension. Rama 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Internet meme in its day. Could use a rewrite though. --Aaron 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Enough interest attracted to be notable. Disliking the subject matter is not grounds for deletion (nominator expresses pro-UN POV on user home page). Andjam 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable internet phenomenon and evidence of Googlebombing.Capitalistroadster 01:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ephemeral joke, bad categorisation, generally useless - doesn't even link googlebombing. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button won't trigger this joke forever. Not widely noted now, not widely used as shorthand for an argument, fails WP:Importance, ephemeral and soon forgotten. Creating this article showed POV (albeit tongue-in-cheek); nominating it for deletion based on notability and expandability isn't a POV action, and a userpage pro-UN stance doesn't seem relevant. Not BJAODN material, since it's not even humor added to WP, just to a tiny bit of Google's terabytes. Barno 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely reported at the time, I wish the article had some more on the reportage. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 22 February 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.