Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Falcon

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 Redirect to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder, as consensus seems to overwhelmingly indicate that this is the most common and widely known use of the article name. A disambiguation page is already in place, should articles covering any other meanings meet the standards of notability and verifiability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Falcon

Blue Falcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a dictionary definition with no reliable sources to support its use. AecisBrievenbus 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Very weak keep. I'm seeing plenty of usage, but the only thing I've found that might be a reliable source is this; I'm not sure how good that is, though. If the page is kept, I recommend making a dab page to include this, Dynomutt's master (and by extension the Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law character based on him), and How Ian Direach got the Blue Falcon; failing that, a hatnote would be useful. (By the way, I wonder how the Blue Falcons--paratroopers, apparently--feel about this.) AnturiaethwrTalk 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete really not a significant term; no prejudice to recreation as a disambiguation page as proposed above. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. Non-notable with few reliable references. Artene50 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder, which is what this article was before repeatedly being changed to what it is now. If restoring the redirect is not appropriate, then I recommend a strong delete. The (potentially) reliable source given above comes nowhere close to mentioning the more colorful definition given by User:Ronjohn. --Kinu t/c 02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. Ask anyone in the military what this word means and they will tell you!! It's also the paratroopers so we can add that toRon John (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not going to question the notability, as that has been established above, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Right now, this article is no more than an uncited dicdef with some rather poor examples. Unless more can be found on this term, it should be deleted as a dicdef. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kinu above. And if you want an article about the paratroopers (which would not be a bad thing), feel free to create one at Blue Falcons - it's still available. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect because this article is ridiculous Voretus (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder as the generally understood meaning. Slang connotations are generally not notable, and buddy f- is no exception. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dynomutt as was the case before the military expression was superimposed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment there are 2 questions here: one is about the military slang, which seems to be headed for non-notability so far. The second is about the best use for the page, and that seems to be headed towards a redirect to Dynomutt. User:Ronjohn is the main proponent for the military slang, and has also brought this up at WP:EAR; he can try to create a decent article at Blue Falcon (military slang) for example. I'll be happy to create the dab page as and when it becomes necessary. The disambiguation page is now ready. I'm going to revert the article to its redirect form. Any editor who wants to take a shot at Blue Falcon (military slang) can retrieve any content from the page history - feel free to leave a message on my talk page or at WP:EAR if I can help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (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.