Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voon (2nd nomination)
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voon
This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
- Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn nonsense. G.He 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomanganitalk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 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.
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voon
This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
- Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn nonsense. G.He 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomanganitalk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 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.
