Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldog In The Bathtub

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. --- Glen 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldog In The Bathtub

See WP:HOAX. Non-notable probable neologism; Google only brings up about 5 results, and not even Urbandictionary knows about it. Crystallina 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I definitely think this is a hoax. It's written in such a weird, yet funny, manner. Besides, we try not to write about neologisms on Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definite hoax, see the Gsearch --- Deville (Talk) 03:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO and/or WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per everyone else. NeoFreak 06:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete kill all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is not a seldom used Wikipedia "vote" when a neologism like this is added. Erechtheus 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and unconditional Delete per WP:HOAX - Blood red sandman 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Michael 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Kinu says it all. Cain Mosni 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Even if it's not a hoax, how is a three-sentence article about a "seldom used" sexual position worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Take it to Urban dictionary. Wavy G 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't any respectable encyclopedia be open to publishing any information that it can locate? Even if the article is proven to be a hoax (which it likely cannot), the article should remain present acknowledging the entry as a hoax. To delete it would be censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: No. Read WP:V, WP:NOT, and most importantly WP:ENC. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, if it's a new term, who would be coming to Wikipedia to research it if the term is only known by its originator (who is, no doubt, the article's author)? Wavy G 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. If I roll a baseball around my keyboard and post the new article dpccvvgh, would deletintg that be censorship? Among other problems, the article would be original research.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm the author of that article, and not the originator of the term. I searched everywhere for the term's origins and couldn't find it, that's why I wrote the article, so that if ever someone else may find the term confusing or comedic or vulgar that there is verifiable evidence that others have as well... just like all of you. The phrase and its definition are now verifiable by the very existence of this message board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.40.216 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 September 2006.
  • Comment: No one cares if the term is offensive or vulgar; WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. The real issue, as stated above, is (by your own admission) the lack of verifiability of any of the information about this word... aside from some random message board, which does not count as a reliable source, even if it was cited, which it is not. Thus this phrase is thus a suspected protologism, and an article about the term probably violates the no original research policy as well. I hope this addresses the concerns you might have as to why other editors are advocating deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you'd read WP:NEO referenced above, you'd know that's utter nonsense. The existence of an article on WP does not prove the worthiness of an article on WP. It should be patently obvious that the article cannot be offered as proof of its own provenance! Cain Mosni 16:05, 6 September 2006 (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.