Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morris Stegosaurus

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 Viridae^Talk 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morris Stegosaurus

Morris Stegosaurus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanispamcruftisement. The Crying Orc 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nomination in jargon. Catchpole 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a non sequitur. I chose to use one word, linked to a document, so that people wouldn't have to wade through screeds of 'This article fails WP:X, WP:Y and WP:Z etc.', which is less legible. One word sums up an entire concept, and if you don't know what the word means you click on the link. If that pisses you off for some reason, then the logical thing to do is not to vote at all, rather than offering an opinion which is not based on the article. Please also read WP:POINT — patrolling the deletion pages and adjusting your votes based on criteria like 'jargon in the nomination' is abusing the AfD process to prove that you don't like something. The Crying Orc 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability outside of the slam poetry scene. Article does not cite sources, article appears to be original research. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and perfectly good jargon it is, too. Doesn't even establish notability within the slam poetry scene in any verifiable way. Robertissimo 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Vanity poets are bad enough. NN Vanity poets are worse. Absurdist NN vanity poets..... really... no need for it. Pete Fenelon 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We seem to be having a rash of these supposed artists at present. I imagine that the phrase "vain poet" hasn't entered the language largely because the adjective is always implicit in the noun. WMMartin 17:26, 29 November 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.