Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking giddy up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.
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. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fucking giddy up

Minor fad that appears to be limited to one community, judging by the relatively large amount of editors to the article, I suspect the article has been posted on said message board for improvement by the posters. -Obli (Talk)? 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I totally agree and the links to the messageboard indicate it's filled with people who don't know how to use photoshop or be funny.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.149.39 (talk • contribs)
    • You're right, most of the photoshops in that thing are badly made or not funny at all. bigexplosions 10:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total garbage. Brian G. Crawford 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch the fad grow. I wouldn't delete it, because Cornelius will come back to haunt you again. Remember the [O Rly? owl?[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.132.242 (talk • contribs)
  • Worst. Fad. Ever. I spend plenty of time in the Newgrounds BBS and I can confirm that "Cornelius mania" can be described as trivial at best, propagated mainly by preteens with little in the way of photoshop skills or humor. Cornelius is a stain upon the Newgrounds community and the internet in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.38.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Too cool for the interweb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.4.194 (talk • contribs)
  • As creator of the article I was hoping to expand this fad but realise I couldn't and so very glad that the "bedn fad" that's been going on for at least dreadful two years on the Newgrounds forums hasn't progressed elsewhere and has become mandatory for every single photoshop thread on the Newgrounds BBS. I'm fairly neutral with whatever decision is made whether to keep or delete this article. I tend to wonder how fads such as the "o rly" fad became an internet phenomenon when itself became quite tedious. However I do not make the choice whether this article should stay or go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfscr (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The o rly, AWB, and the damn Chuck Norris fads were let on, so why shouldn't Cornelius stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.223.198.113 (talk • contribs) .
    • Because the article isn't actually about the meme. It's a load of bollocks. If the meme gets any bigger then it should be filed under 'Cornellious' and actually contain information about the known origins of the image and aspects of the meme, but right now it's the wrong topic for an article, and the wrong article for the topic. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --blue520 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Confined to one internet community only. Non-notable. --Doug (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Best entry I've ever seen. Honestly. This beats the artical on Quanum Bio-Physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.80.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Per nom. --DanielCD 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this should have been speedied as either nonsense or nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, forumcruft. -- The Anome 00:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The creator of the article here again, I see this article is progressing as there are people contributing to the origins of Cornellius (although it's spelt differently in different forums. It proves from the addition to the article that people would like this to stay up. Perhaps we can change this into "Cornellius" or however people want it spelt and have "Fucking Giddy Up" as a sub heading.I apologize to the original founders of the mosh guy/Cornellious for assuming the Cornellius fad started on the Newgrounds BBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfscr (talk • contribs)
  • what a bunch of completley heartless mother-fuckers, i agree that if bedn, chuck norris and other crap like that got on wikipedia, then this should stay. so consider that crap before lashing out at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.229.238 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Rory096(block) 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment i already voted, but...chuck norris facts are not limited to a forum. they are world wide, digital and non. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:49, 26 April 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.