Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Boonkiddie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] American Boonkiddie

Completely non-notable neologism. Google searches for "American Boonkiddie," "Boonkiddie," and "Boon kiddie" yield nothing substantial. Nufy8 02:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep A good definition. Rogerthat777 08:52 (PST), 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Kept Realist True Fact, strong arguement. Finalfuryflash 10:10, 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Voting to Keep Non-attack, strong ideology, well difined. Midgetman009890 10:55, 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

:Above 3 delete votes will be disregarded when counting Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 05:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete attack, neologoism, lack of noteability, and possible sock puppetry. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Please vote based on the article's merits and not based on the turnout of sockpuppets. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think he is, as he's stated attack and neologism as his primary reason. However, I've found that socks hound shite articles, and excessive sockpuppetry is an indication to take a good long look at an article. --Blackcap | talk 21:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism bordering on autologism. Nateji77 13:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. God, who cares? -- Last Malthusian 14:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nice looking article though. Any new users tempted to vote keep shouldn't really waste their time, the votes won't be counted. Kappa 14:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP It's Interesting. Mikerson60 11:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. Nufy8 18:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

:Above 3 delete votes will be disregarded when counting Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism, too many sock puppets ruin most articles' chances, anyway, but in this case, it's not keepable regardless. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hard strong violent delete. Neologism, worthless. --Blackcap | talk 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom (and block the four sockpuppets). Owen× ☎ 20:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the socks have spoken. Alf melmac 20:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and that many socks usually means it should be deleted anyway. Bart133 (t) 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Attack page Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism (zero unique google hits). --Hurricane111 21:35, 15 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.