Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest (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 keep. John254 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Phallic Building contest[edit]

This is not notable enough for its own article. Meaningful content can be merged to Cabinet magazine. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cabinet magazine, doesn't quite deserve its own page, little hope of expansion. "The tower was finally erected in 1890."... huh huh huh, brick dick, huh huh huh, erected... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cabinet magazine as per TPH. Har har, silly pun. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or in this case, Castrate) As per WP:NOT#NEWS. A smutty humour piece in a magazine is neither notable nor encyclopedic, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this passed AFD with a keep decision in February. Articles shouldn't be renominated in such a short period (I consider 6 months to be short) until a desired result occurs. The AFD discussion was also quite extensive, so it's not a case of it being an under-debated keep decision, either. 23skidoo (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cabinet magazine per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. (What? They didn't consider the erotic gherkin?) Grutness...wha? 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- This was a clear keep nomination only a short time ago, the re-nomination has no basis, and seems to consist of invalid arguments like "silly article" and "smutty". There were pages upon pages of argument on the previous AfD, and nothing has been said here to refute any of the conclusions or arguments drawn from it, simply a bunch of one liners calling for it to go. None of it addresses the mountain of discussion, articles and sources that were debated heatedly in the previous AfD, and which resulted in a clear keep vote.- JJJ999 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our notability policy. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It also seems to be more than just a short burst of news reports as policy addresses in What Wikipedia is not: News reports. What policy dictates notability as to whether or not it has a "hope of expansion" or if it is a "smutty humour piece"? Altairisfar _talk 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A definitive Wikipedia article, supported by the most responsible element among the editors. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wetman. Still notable enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both preceding on notability grounds. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Atom (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion and overwhelming consensus above. Verifiable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that this isn't the best subject for an article, but it passes WP:N. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. Has several reliable sources that prove notability. Europe22 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 independant reliable sources simply sink any arguments about non-notablity. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 14 August 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.