Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tummy sticks

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tummy_sticks

dicdef 128.112.24.137 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

By my standing rule, this gets another five days discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Wedding Crashers, though I wouldn't oppose deletion either. Just one neologism out of a recent film is unlikely to be expanded to a full article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tony, you are wasting my and everybody's time. This is a clear candidate for deletion. Nobody voted keep, not even the author, who is presumably long gone. Sdedeo 09:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry Tony, that came out kind of harsh. Long day. Sdedeo 13:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem with your comment, but I'm not deleting an article that only has two valid delete votes. I don't count the nominator because he's on an IP and with an edit history that only goes back to August 1. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Anonymous votes should only be discounted if bad faith can be proved. You should know that, Tony. Assume good faith. Proto t c 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To discount anon votes is ok. To discount an anon nomination is not ok. This had consensus to delete. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and this kind of relisting makes it into one. If you're not happy with the outcome of a VfD, don't close it. -Splash 02:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• In the interests of allowing the discussion to continue, sheep-keep --Simon Cursitor 11:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. android79 12:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per retarded. JDoorjam 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the best efforts of some of our editors, this is still an encyclopedia.--Scimitar ^parley 20:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Proto t c 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Not much more than a dicdef. It might gain popularity, but could easily be recreated at that time. ManoaChild 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Nandesuka 23:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. And Tony should stop wasting people's time. --Calton | Talk 01:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete has had a valid prior VfD that should have been closed as delete. -Splash 02:17, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.