Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poo brown.

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. WP:SNOW, per consensus below, WP:NEO, and borderline nonsense. Malinaccier (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poo brown

Poo brown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

While this appears to be a good-faith attempt to create an article on the particular colour of human excrement, it is nonetheless not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. —Random832 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, I still think this looks like vandalism and the term is a neoglism at best. Not widely used. Not a real shade of paint unless you count a mention in South Park way back in season six. Does not even merit a merge I think. Redfarmer (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have speedily deleted the page twice, asking the user not to re-create it, with the following message:
    The page wasn't encyclopedic in the least; it just consisted of random facts added together. The color of human excrement is, surprisingly, covered in Human feces; in addition, feces are listed in the article Brown in a list of items of that color. In addition, the page title was inappropriate (see the naming conventions).
  • I consider this debate a process for the sake of process, but in any case, delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per Mike Rosoft. Not an actual color name. Blog and forum messages aren't proper references. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears Random832 got here before me - I undeleted the page due to the above concerns, per WP:ATWV, and as speedy deletion should not be controversial. Note that the user who created this page has been blocked for two days for disruption by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). However, the page is not really that encyclopaedic so I suggest deleting it or redirecting to Brown. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I just reduced the user's block from indefinite to 2 days; the original block was imposed by Nlu (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense. Nakon 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - neologism. If there was any requirement for this page (log for original version), it probably would have been merged or redirected already. Rudget. 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete mainly per Redfarmer—secondarily, it's nonsense. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:33 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not patent nonsense, but certainly regular nonsense. No encyclopedic value, childish and sophomoric, and created by a highly-disruptive user too. Despite the fact that such things only raise questions that can't be answered (as to the user's intention, etc.), it's still totally unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Luckily, you'll never find this one in the Crayola box. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless you are the subject of a terrible practical joke. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Cleanup and expand. Ex Kree Meant (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is quite obviously a block-evading-sockpuppet/SPA created in relation to this article/AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No no, I am just a humble poo enthusiast. Ex Kree Meant (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This user has been blocked indefinitely as a blatant sock puppet account attempting to evade a block. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Naughty word in title. Georgia guy (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NEO and original research - besides, since when is excrement a consistent color? - Chardish (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Non-notable as a color name, checked some dictionaries of color names and this name does not appear. Even if it was a notable color name it would be no more then a dictionary definition. The RGB values for the coordinate box are non-sourced. PaleAqua (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Awesome. 203.194.15.162 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (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.