Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilism

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 speedy delete as an attack page. Although, strictly speaking, the article does not constitute solely an attack, I am exercising a little discretion in light of the unanimous delete opinions below. The article starts by grossly insulting several groups of people and then descends into an scatological essay written in the first-person about a "unique and somewhat unprecedented philosophy". The attacks combined with the explicit admisssion that what isn't an attack is original research make this something that simply isn't an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerbilism

Original research Fg2 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Has WP:BOLLOCKS been made official policy yet? This is a textbook case. --Joelmills 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV The most NPOV thing is the use of "I" word there. -- Imoeng 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G1 --Icarus (Hi!) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per criteria. Crystallina 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think this sort of thing is speediable under current policies (though I wish it were). - Richardcavell 05:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete bollocks. Sadly, it's not patent nonsense, but it's a thin line. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no-brainer.SB_Johnny | talk 10:15, 29 July 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.