Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary Digestive Collectivism

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Digestive Collectivism

Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. The link provided has nothing to do with this phenomenon. It's unverifiable. Was prodded and de-prodded. Delete. Makemi 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:V --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Well written, it's a shame. But, per nom, Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. I hope this editor turns to real subjects. Ifnord 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with nom; agree that the guys who wrote this should be encouraged to write articles on real topics -- Samir (the scope) 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. The movement in question was indeed founded on school grounds, but its members are engaging seriously in public promotion of its ideals. As one of the main editors of the entry in question, I can say that I do very much respect Wikipedia and the fine people who are responsible for its functioning. More work will be put towards seeking similar movements and linking them, for the principles expressed in PDC are certainly not unique. The article has only been in existence for two days. Give us more time to make it one worthy of Wikipedia, please. —This unsigned comment was added by Monsieur Prolong (talk • contribs) .
  • I'd like to say again this was a well-written article, the problem is the subject. No matter how you expand or rewrite, it will still be deleted. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia though, we need good writers. Ifnord 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. Well-written but ultimately pointless.  (aeropagitica)  13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT and definitely unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or move to the uncyclopedia. Cute BJAODN, if I understand this correctly, these folks have re-invented and re-named an interesting concept formerly known as sharingBridesmill 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• But guys, Jim didn't share his sandwich on March 29; surely that's notable, no? Of course, notwithstanding the humor and quality of the article, delete, per Ifnord, inter al., is surely appropriate. Joe 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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.