Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Pigman☿ 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Form

Bad Form (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article was a prod but was removed several times by an anon and even at times the article was blanked, so it goes to AFD. Article was proposed for deletion because being unencyclopeic. JForget 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: How about NEO? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, looks to be also consisting of WP:OR with no sources to validate the info, thus fails WP:V.--JForget 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems more of a personal attack page to me against someone who slighted the editor IRL. Nate · (chatter) 01:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:OR. Hal peridol (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definite WP:COATRACK/WP:ATP material. Someone is playing around with someone else, maliciously or not. The image has got to go, too, so don't forget that. --Dhartung | Talk 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The term is used enough that there may be some information about it out there, but this article does not appear to be salvageable. Delete as an attack page, possible borderline speedy. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious neologism and OR. Chris! ct 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: not actually a neologism (the expression goes back decades), but not a notable development either. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment bad form is hardly a neologism! I used it only the other day, and it must date back to about the 1920s at least. Any wierd content here could be simply removed and the article rewritten. The problem would be whether it could be more than a dicdef. Here's a poster with it on, from 1915, not far off a century ago [1] sorry if it's a wierd source to have, but it's late lol.Merkinsmum (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as personal attack page. Possible Speedy Delete? --DAJF (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "scholars maintain it started around two years ago in a certain house in the Limerick area. Someone is having a laugh here. Whether the actual term itself is notable enough for a page is a whole different issue, but in this format, this page is simply not even slightly relevant. Tx17777 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete —Animum (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT Alexfusco5 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this article should be given a chance to grow and develop, like a fine wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.105 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - This edit pretty much confirms the attack page aspect of my vote. Nate · (chatter) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone blanked the page today. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above really... :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:38, 29 November 2007 (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.