Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plop art

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 nomination was delete and BJAODN. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, no BJAODN, as references added after those motions nullify them somewhat. There's just not much to merge though ("Public art is called 'plop art' by some people [1] [2]") - what is there could be written into public art in someone's own words without violating GFDL if they considered it absolutely necessary. I'll dig out the references from the article if anyone wants them for that purpose. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plop art

Although funny & apt, is a non-encyclopedic neologism. Cheese Sandwich 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and BJAODN it ... it is funny ! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 11:02, April 9, 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, because of the Great War on Short Convenient Redirects for Wikipedia-space Articles, you should have cited WP:BJAODN. Morgan Wick 04:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN per David Humphreys. Fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• BJify, though I'd like to see this used more. HumbleGod 07:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move shouldnt this be transwikied to the dictionary wiki. I have heard this term used before.--Kev62nesl 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• BJify indeed. This doesn't belong here, but it's too good to just cast into the ether. --DarkAudit 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. funny, but not helpful at all. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not that funny. SM247^{My Talk} 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not at all funny and not worthy of a place in an encyclopaedia -- Alias Flood 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge into Public art. This expression is a verifiable slang term. See [1], [2], and [3] for examples from the New York Times. As a second choice, transwiki to Wiktionary, and as a third choice, delete entirely. It doesn't deserve to be sent to BJAODN. --Metropolitan90 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Public art per Met90. After looking through thhe Google results, I do think it's a verifiable term. As a stand-alone article it would be a dicdef but I think it could be merged just fine. -Big Smooth 21:24, 7 July 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.