Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco bell monster

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 of the debate was BJAODN & delete. Sango123 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taco bell monster

Elaborately constructed hoax. Excellent BJAODN material. Enjoy Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉)</finsup> 04:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep BJAODN Several minutes of good laugh. Worth keeping as an example of a hoax, with appropriate notice. (I meant BJAODN) CP/M 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and I didn't find it funny either Bwithh 04:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per nom and CP\M. Morgan Wick 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep BJAODN I agree, this is a good example of a hoax, as long as it remains labled as such. It appears as it has moved to BJAODN status. Bobmario2 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Possibly as a policy example of a hoax. I have to say I normally would give this a quick delete, but it is so obviously a hoax, and a funny one at that, so lets keep it. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Have I traveled into the twilight zone? Aren't we normally supposed to delete hoaxes? Even if we were to keep it as an example of a hoax, it should go in Wikipedia namespace. If it attained notability in the real world, then I would keep it as an article about the hoax. Put in Wikipedia namespace, userfy, BJAODN, transwiki to Uncyclopedia, just plain delete, anything but keep it in article namespace. Morgan Wick 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize Morgan Wick, I did not mean keep the article where it is, but to move it so it can be used as an example of a hoax. Sorry about that, Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The recommendation for this position is BJAODN. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, most haoxes don't belong in the main namespace--Peta 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Yep, it's funny, and I'm sure there are lots of blogs or web pages out there where it'd belong. Wikipedia, last time I checked, is an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable hoax. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete per nom and others. If it was an article about a hoax that had achieved notability elsewhere, then you could argue for keeping it in the main namespace. But since it doesn't, BJAODN is the only place for it. Paddles TC 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no BJAODN unless nonsense itself is a qualifier - I'd prefer the J to be the standard for BJADON. MLA 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and not funny enough for BJAODN StuartF 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Belongs on Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Not notable fictional monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypandy.UK (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not even funny. -- GWO
  • Move to Uncyclopedia. Does not belong here. The Halo (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as an unfunny joke --Guinnog 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, bad joke, moving to Uncyclopedia is a good idea. --Terence Ong 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Uncyclopedia, then Delete. - CNichols 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN--DCAnderson 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Go to worth1000.com to see much funnier Photoshopping. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:26, 2 June 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.