Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal in a mask

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal in a mask

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Although described as an "internet phenomenon", the phrase which is the subject of this article garners only one Google hit, from Wikipedia itself. [1] This phrase does not appear to be well-known beyond Wikipedia's own reference desk, if indeed it is well-known there at all. No Google Groups hits, either. [2] No sources are provided, making this article unverifiable. This was originally submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD was challenged. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 20:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Attempt to create a neologism.--Húsönd 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per our policy on avoiding self-reference, and because "internet phenomena" which never get beyond a single website aren't really very phenomenal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of above. Edeans 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ASR. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep awesome. --216.164.199.95 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. AuburnPilotTalk 01:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep its communly used in my aim convos --209.122.217.178 02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it does no harm. --216.164.199.62 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article appears to be externaly unverifiable through the use of published, third-party sources. As the information is unsourced, we do not know if it is correct or not, and incorrect information is harmful. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and attempting to promote an image of being useful and reliable. Having unencyclopedic, unreliable information is harmful. Articles suck up the Wikipedia server's hardware power and bandwith and editors manpower for fact checking. Incorrect, unverifiable articles of minimal encyclopedic content are harmful. -- saberwyn 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above.THL 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. FWIW, I prodded this, but it seems that the prod was removed. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan and saberwyn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment IP votes appear to be from the same provider. zephyr2k 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Institutionalized nonsense will only foster more nonsense. In-jokes should make a better effort to be funny... or well-written. Caknuck 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I swear I've heard this from somewhere else before, as in "Is it illegal to ask a bank teller for money? What if you're wearing a mask?" Postdlf 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete made up nonsense (whether or not the author was wearing a mask...) -- AJR | Talk 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apparently non-notable (although I read the entries on the reference desk)... 惑乱 分からん 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Also we do not want to encourage this sort of questions on the RDs--Light current 05:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-admitted self-reference and neologism. If we can't have an article about suitly emphazi, we can't have an article about this either. JIP | Talk 06:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing more than an injoke on one section of Wikipedia Lemon martini 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy, fails WP:V and WP:NSR. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic. And not that funny either --WikiSlasher 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Are there ever penalties for trolling on the Ref Desk with nonsense questions about "legality of doing x while wearing a mask?" Edison 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No. How do you penalise a nonregistered user?--Light current 20:34, 27 October 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.