Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egg gun

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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egg gun

This one is good! A personal prototype that has received no publicity or acknowledgement consititutes original research and a non notable article. I think the author is cool though, but a definite delete. Wikipedia never fails to suprise me. Molotov (talk)
22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. (Aside: This is why we need WP:PWDS...) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto Bunchofgrapes —Wayward ^Talk 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That would be original research, then. -Splash^talk 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. nothing to debate here. --JJay 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per OR policy. However, the person who wrote this is obviously creative and has a good grip on the English language. I suggest those of us who thought the article cool, even if not fit for Wikipedia, tell the guy/girl that we liked the article anyway. We'll want to keep the (anonymous) writer around. (The person has also contributed to one stub that does fit into Wikipedia.) Okay, never mind on that last bit, that was a test edit, obviously. Still liked this article.... --Jacquelyn Marie 01:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be entirely inappropriate for me to say here that I'm not sure the author is so cool? (Probably, but I'm going to do it anyway.) This sentence on his external "egg-gun" page [1] makes this Wikipedia article look like a calculated attempt to simply boost his Google PageRank: "Besides actually using the egg gun I have decided I need to become the number 1 ranked web site for the key-phrase egg gun." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • To aid that campaign, I have munged the link in the article. -Splash^talk 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, point made, but the article was still cool if unencyclopedic. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 05:34, 21 October 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.