Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun fetish

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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 05:23Z

[edit] Gun fetish

Gun fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod removed; procedural nomination. The article itself is a good candidate for deletion, though; no sources and almost totally speculative. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for obvious reasons. – ClockworkSoul 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it appears to be bordering on both nonsense and an attack article (person's name at end). However, there is also a real sexual fetish focused on guns that could exist at this name, and it should be noted that this is not actually an article on that subject to avoid accidentally misleading future article participants. --tjstrf talk 01:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per the above. Borderline G10/A1? Tevildo 01:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - seems to be a gross violation of many criteria; WP:NEO, WP:ATTACK, WP:REF, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOTE. The article does not contain any references. Reading the article itself is painful and is nearly incomprehensible nonsense. --wtfunkymonkey 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, though does not seem to be a speedy candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been speedied under nonsense. DoomsDay349 02:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

comment; As far as I know CSD:G1 won't work here as poor writing is specifically excluded. Nonsense does not apply since there is an obvious point to the article, it's just articulated VERY poorly. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteMarginal, and of little value. No references given. Atom 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and agree with above arguments. A2Kafir 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ...well, there is such a thing as a gun fetish, but this article doesn't address it and it shouldn't remain — shoot it and put it out of its misery. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Administer the coup de grâce at once, per above. Guinnog 04:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• (note, edit conflict) It rambles, and seems entirely speculative. No cites, and it just sounds like BS. I'm calling WP:BOLLOCKS and going with a Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). --Dennisthe2 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete POV and largely OR. Note: I removed the "see Michael Kerr" line from the end of the article as a personal attack against a living person, as per WP:RPA, as it was not critical to the material at question to provide yet another example and it was a pure attack, I didn't see a way to refactor it neutrally and in line with a neutral point of view. Wintermut3 04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. TSO1D 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary With some verified source, it'd be a good candidate for Wiktionary, otherwise delete per above. GCFreak2 06:23, 26 December 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.