Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blazin'

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 delete. – Robert 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blazin'

Nominated for speedy deletion, but the author objected on the article talkpage. Looks like complete nonsense, and mostly a hoax, but we'll give it a hearing here. Harro5 04:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (Changing my vote to Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense, copyvio, hoax.) I can't even tell what it's about. rodii 04:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since when can the author of spam get it's deletion slowed down? This is such obvious rediculousness.... Staxringold 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What exactly is this article about? And why is there a picture of men posing around some Jeep? --Impaciente 05:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Speedy Delete - patent nonsense. Also consider the fact that the author keeps on removing all CSD notices. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Guys, cut it out. This article is obviously about the word "Blazin'" and where it was first being used. Did any of you even read the article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9090 (talk • contribs) _{- original author of the article}
  • Then non-notable. Regardless, it does not belong in Wikipedia - the etymology of some random word? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, a lot of the information is obviously made up. So this page is an indiscriminate collection of misinformation.worthawholebean _talk^contribs 06:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is it, then, that Wikipedia has an article detailing the origins of the word "fuck"? Guess that should be deleted too... And that's much more offensive than this article is. =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9090 (talk • contribs) _{- original author of the article}
      • That article is not patent nonsense - "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." That article is notable. Should we have a page on defenestration, just because it's a cool word? That article is not just about the etymology. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 06:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I read the article, though it made my brain bleed. Encyclopedia articles should make it clear at the top what their subject is. This one doesn't. It's a random collection of unsourced "facts" and an huge, inexplicable picture of some guys around a jeep. I don't see that it even is about the word "Blazin'", nor that that word is in any way worth a dictionary entry, nor that this is any kind of serious treatment of "where it was first being used." This article is a chain-yank, full of juvenile jokes, malapropisms and falsehoods. One might suspect it's really some kind of fan-love for Blazin' Squad (whose picture, by the way, is a probable copyvio). Scammin'. rodii 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll tell you this much - it sure as hell wasn't anything to do with the Blazin' Squad. Trust me, if you click on the picture, the caption reads that it was the first image to come up in a google search of the word "Blazin'". Nothing more. Also notice the acronym of the word - "BS". And, even further, if your monitor is set to 1600x1200, try clicking on Black Sabbath in the index; the first thing you see at the top of your screen is "BS", which is the acronym for Black Sabbath. There are a few hidden treats in there for the readers, making this article worth its while. Oh yeah, and I just read a little about the Blazin' Squad. I'm sorry, but that band must suck like most Rappers tend to - I'm a jazz guy. Coltrane and Monk at Carnegie, anybody? -Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9090 (talk • contribs) _{- original author of the article}
• Delete. Zero Google hits for "Arthur Z. Wolkshenger", author's only claimed source. Prefer not to have to waste time on stuff like this. Herostratus 07:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and just because a computer doesn't hold any data on him, that maens he doesn't exist? If you type my grandmother's name into Google, you won't find any information on her. Oh, but she exists, and I know that for a fact. I ALSO know that Wolkshenger exists as well. Go to your library and check out one of his books. Both I've read are out of print, although, as I stated before, I can retrieve them from the library again and take photographs of the books for validity. Until then, please assume nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9090 (talk • contribs) _{- original author of the article}
    • Not necessarily. But if Google doesn't return any hits for a term, it's probably a good indication that the subject in question does not belong on Wikipedia, which is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Take it as a guideline, one that lends credibility to the side that uses it effectively. In this case, it would be Herostratus. Plus you're forgetting that the Google argument is just secondary to the article itself: its just a collection of patent nonsense as pointed out above. If you feel strongly about the article, then please flesh it out and get it up to the commonly accepted standards of WP. --Impaciente 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Note that what failed the test was not the subject of the article, but the source that the author is citing for this article. I've searched the Library of Congress, and it, too, indicates that there are no books whatsoever by the author named. It is therefore a reasonable deduction that the article's author is citing a fake source. Since it's the only source that the author has cited, and searches certainly turn up no other sources (which is what it means for an article's subject to fail the Google test, by the way), the article is thus unverifiable. Anything for which there are no (real) sources cited in the article itself and for which no sources at all can be located after the fact is unverifiable. Uncle G 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. --Metropolitan90 07:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense (and probably should have been speedied). ESkog | ^Talk 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense ("Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"). Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 21:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. I had this speedied, but it was removed. Staxringold 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• As noted above, this article is unverifiable. It almost goes without saying that in fact blazin' is just a simple contraction of blazing. Delete. Uncle G 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possibly crossposting to BJAODN Swamp Ig 10:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could this be a case for Wiktionary? --Thephotoman 00:39, 8 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.