Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese breakfast

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) 2006-12-06 08:16Z

[edit] Portuguese breakfast

Portuguese breakfast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dictionary definition, dubious verifiability (we don't need articles about things from Urbandictionary, which has a worse credibility record than Wikipedia itself), nowhere near academic.Djcartwright 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I now officially know too much. riana_dzasta 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN spooge. --Aaron 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, for stuff made up one day nor an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V. There are no reliable sources on what a Portugese breakfast is, and the unreliable ones scattered across the Internet differ vastly on its contents (raw or cooked eggs? anal or vaginal cavity? ham or canadian bacon? latina or woman of any ethnicity?) --Hyperbole 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V. WP:OR, dicdef, WP:NFT, this is trash. Terence Ong 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence Ong. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary def from dubious dictionary, not verified, blah blah. QuiteUnusual 10:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete boredteencruft. Danny Lilithborne 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, no. I did get a mild chuckle, but that is a bit far out there. I think it is was too obscure for an article, as opposed to a more populary references Cleveland Steamer or such. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I was looking for a continental breakfast and all I got was WP:V WP:OR and nausea...Mallanox 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom for failing WP:V amongst other policies. We host a few unsual articles on sexual practices, and this isn't going to be one of them. RFerreira 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, this is officially too weird to even be allowed. If this is even real, I'll be amazed. I can't see how it possibly merits an encyclopedia article. Heimstern Läufer 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it, now, ASAP - why does it seems that every piece of gross sexual slang from urbandictionary.com has to end up on Wikipedia? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the talk page and find out. riana_dzasta 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh my gosh. That talk page needs to go to BJAODN. It's beautiful. --Masamage 09:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. 'Nessicary reference'? Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. riana_dzasta 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Riana - thanks for the laugh, BTW - and BJAODN the talk: however, the actually article should be stuck away in some cavernous hole where no one will ever see it again - that's the deletion bin, before you ask. Moreschi 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. o_O I've gone ahead with BJAODNing the talk page. --Masamage 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless George W. Bush gives a public demonstration with the assistance of Nancy Pelosi. Then it'll be notable. WMMartin 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! I didn't think this discussion could degrade any further! :) riana_dzasta 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't jinx it! ;P --Masamage 01:23, 6 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.