Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One percenter

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. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One percenter

One percenter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete WP:OR, fails WP:V, maybe even WP:HOAX. Doubtful notability even if this was reconciled.Just H 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this cruft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Split Infinity (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 December 2006.
• Delete OR, doesn't seem notable, fails WP:V. --Sable232 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Random cruft; per nom. King Toadsworth 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Somitho 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect "One percenter" to Motorcycle club. Mmoyer 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, everything from this article is covered in the Motorcycle club article, with the added bonus of references. Mmoyer 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - please, useless. SkierRMH,08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• One deleter to add to the chorus. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a fairly well known concept. IIRC it was mentioned in Hunter S. Thompson's book on the Hell's Angels. At any rate it meets the "I had heard of it before I read the Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I've heard of this as I have a few bikers in my family. It's definitely not a hoax, and it needs expansion; don't know quite how to go about doing this for this topic. I searched on the web before this AFD and could not find much more than this. Someone realy dedicated to the topic needs to dig harder. - CobaltBlueTony 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I agree with some of the reasons for the "keep" votes, but still, this is just cruft that Wikipedia can use without. The RSJ 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, well-known, well documented concept, google turns up thousands of hits related to this, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. That last one is from a History Channel documentary I saw which discusses the concept. I'm sure there's plenty of other reliable, verifiable sources to be found with only the tiniest bit of research. It's been around since the forties (July 4, 1947 according to one of those sources). Some of those refs may be a little trivial, but some definitely are not, and I'm sure that many more can be found. Also acceptable would be a redirect per Mmoyer, but deleting this real, important and verifiable concept while keeping all the dumptruckloads of cruft we have about (e.g.) Pokemon, one-hit-wonder bands, video-game weaponry and dead-end highway spurs would be criminal! Xtifr _tälk 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Xtifr. --Krator 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per MMoyer's reasoning. GRBerry 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed a legitimate term for some, but shouldn't the definition of a term be in the dictionary?ER^Talk 07:48, 21 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.