Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Sucker Theory

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 - also noted that Anthoo has few edits outside of this article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Sucker Theory

Novelty "theory" with no sources except one broken link. Kusma proposed for deletion, author reverted without addressing concerns. Gazpacho 05:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete original research or hoax. Gazpacho 05:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yanksox 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or Keep with major clean up. Depending on the search terms used, I've found between 700+ to 700,000+ Google refs. Seems to have been a "joke" theory similar in spirit to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ande B. 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not in the same category as Flying Spaghetti Monster. MLA 08:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep i will try to clean it up - infamous theory deserves to have its place here. P.S - don't know how i should go about cleaning it up though... Anthmoo 11:25, 3 June 2006
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Revenge_of_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense#Dark_Sucker_Theory. Avenue 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks that'll do i guess... =P
• Delete and salt the earth seeing it's been BJAODNed before. We don't need another article space redirect into BJAODN. Kimchi.sg 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, old joke article that's been bouncing around networks for years. - Motor (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it is a joke, not a theory. As theory it should obviously go, but as joke someone might establish sufficient notability (but I doubt it very much, so delete). Lundse 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kimchi. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Old fax/email joke. Previously BJAODNed. - CNichols 17:25, 5 June 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.