Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville fatigue

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville fatigue

POV original research near-nonsense. It was tagged 'speedy' - but removed by someone - and I'm not sure whether it justifies it (no-obection if someone thinks otherwise)--Doc Glasgow 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. oh so many reasons. POV-laden essay, fan-cruft, original research, pseudoscientific neologisms, misrepresentations, humor that commits the unpardonable sin: not being funny. - Nunh-huh 22:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 00:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it's actually a pretty accurate description of the current state of Smallville (TV series), but it's a non-encyclopedic essay and certainly not NPOV. Quale 01:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

-What a crock. You are treating this site with so much disrespect, ironic considering how much Smallville TWoP boarders critisize the morality of characters. You cannot honestly justify this article serves any other purpose than to get a laugh. Just look at these quotes.

"If the Wikipedia people don't care to share and inform others about the growing danger of SFS, then fuck 'em. They'll be doing the world a disservice by not educating us about the health hazard that is Season Four."

"I think the Wikipedia people just wanna keep their cred as some sort of "legitimately educational" source. But really, how seriously will we ever take something that starts with "wiki?"

"Okay, if the person who posted the Wikipedia definition of SFS lurks in these forums, show yourself. YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS. I laughed for at least ten minutes after reading that."

"Some snobbish jackasses over there have taken issue with the biased nature of my research, asking for the entry to be deleted. I argue that, while I am somewhat biased, the condition of SFS is indeed real and documented, therefore the entry still keeps its core integrity, which is simply providing the nature, etiology, and symptoms of SFS. Hopefully the good people at Wikipedia will understand this."'

"Man, those people who post on the 'Pages for deletion' area are assholes."

"They don't even like, "Assclown." Who doesn't like, "Assclown?!" I just heard it on "O.C." last week!"'

Retrieved from "http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=2228538&st=1890"

• Delete. Personally I would have speedied it but since it's here, vote for termination with extreme prejudice. Sjc 05:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I did put it up for being speedied the moment it was made, dunno what happened to that. Absolute nonsense Drak 06:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only do they make a article for the sake of their own juvenile amusement but WE'RE the jackasses for objecting." VOTE FOR TERMINATION WITH EXTREME PLEASURE. Usni

• delete. I love this atricle and think it's spot on, but unfortunately this is simply not the right place.--198.93.113.49 16:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and make it speedy. DreamGuy 16:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with kryptonite, no potential to become encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a criticism site. Barno 19:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.