Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McWiccans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McWiccans

Tagged for speedy. Whatever it is, it isn't a speedy. But I don't know what it means to be. I'm inclined to delete fanfic or something. History shows tagging anon thought it might be Wikisource. -Splashtalk 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete transient slang is not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 01:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it made me laugh. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--inks 04:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's an entry for Wicca why not? I think this goes beyond slang and describes a contemporary youth subculture. 05.55 16 September 2005. Andy Wolf.
    • Contribution by User:172.200.72.63, the article creator. — Phil Welch 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an original essay with a brief intro. See WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alf melmac 08:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Copyright (c) Richard J Price 2005 All Rights Reserved." Good job Richard, you just GFDL'd your crappy "all rights reserved" dicdef. — Phil Welch 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Fluffbunny Ashibaka (tock) 03:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original essay/personal research. No evidence given that the term is in any significant real use. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable slang. / Peter Isotalo 00:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fluffy bunny --Icarus 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • McDelete The term is destined to enter the dictionaries at some point in the near future - but not encyclopedias!! --redstucco 09:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. This sentence acknowledges that the term is not in common use now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Richard J. Price's opinion that the term will enter the dictionaries is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:24, 20 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.