Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav vehicle modification (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chav vehicle modification

Chav vehicle modification was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-11. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav vehicle modification.

Though this page was deleted back in August, I put it here rather than in speedy because this version is, if nothing else, well developed and goes back to September. However, I feel that the original view - that this information is unverifiable, only vaguely encyclopedic and that most of it is covered in 'chav' still applies. Robdurbar 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It may also be worth considering that the chav article (until today ) previously linked to Rice burner - so a merger into that aritcle could be a possible alternative to deletion.Robdurbar 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If this article were to be merged into Chav, then it would need a rewrite, as it is less than neutral.
• Comment If this article were to be cleaned up, it would form an acceptable paragraph on the Chav article. As it is, the tone is derogatory and it says more about the attitudes of the author than about the behaviour of the subject. -- (aeropagitica)  18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (again)in Burberry simply unreferenced anecdotal prejudice . The opening line asserts 'Chav Vehicle Modification is an often derogatory term' - but is it an often used term? Google gives only one citation that's not a mirror [1] and the article offers nothing more. So non-notable, unverified, POV, original research as it stands. --Doc ^ask? 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is distinctly POV and mostly conjecture. I did get a brief snicker out of it though. BJAODN perhaps? Dan 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and not BJAODN. These articles attract the unverifiable, prejudice, schoolboy sniggerings and the absurd. Secretlondon 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as repost of already deleted material. Stifle 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. chocolateboy 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it were rewritten from NPOV, there are 39 google results of which most are Wikipedia+mirrors, therefore the term is not notable and may violate no original research. Joe D (t) 00:28, 9 January 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.