Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban housework

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban housework

I believe that this is best understood as a one-off source of satire rather than any genuine sport or performance art movement. Removing the hyperbole from the article would leave nothing, and there is no referenceable source that can be used to document the existence of this movement, since the only purported sources are television and web sites. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep Bankovious 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  The above is user's first edit ever. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  Bankovious is a sock puppet of one of my very own personal trolls. I have accumulated several personal trolls over time and none of them ever seem to go away entirely. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep Hey, I've heard of it so it must at least have had some notability. It won't last though and someday (soon?) will be but a dot in the rear-view mirror of popular culture. I'd say leave it for a while yet though. Spondoolicks 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable due to media attention. MCB 22:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per nom. Media coverage saves it from a regular delete, but that's not enough to make it unfadish enough. karmafist 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in hopes of garnering a consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ifnord 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• If this is an event that actually happened than keep. If it someone faling to be funny then delete.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Sure doesn't pass the 100-year test, does it? We do have an article on extreme ironing though. I guess it was on TV, but will it be notable even 2 years from now? There's gotta be a limit to including really minor fads. Should be merged into an article with extreme ironing etc. Or at any rate cut to one paragraph. Herostratus 07:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per The Uninvited. -- Kjkolb 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - happily meets WP:WEB per the media coverage. Sounds valid. Referenced, etc. Zordrac 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As Urban housework is NOT a website, WP:WEB does not apply. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless, that is, someone can provide sources to verify all that claimed media coverage. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain until some better Google hits are found. I gave up after my google searching led me to this very discussion. Methinks the googlebot is getting a little too good. :) Turnstep 01:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 00:25, 2 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.