Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viagra cartoons

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 delete. —Xezbeth 09:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viagra cartoons

delete not encyclopedic CoolGuy 08:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm amazed someone actually wrote this article in the first place. Talk about having too much free time. Anyway, the article is hopelessly non-encyclopedic, describing a single one-panel cartoon as if it were an epic poem. And it also smacks of an advertisement for Viagra. Delete. The cartoon itself should be mentioned in Viagra, but all this babble about analysing its meaning has to go. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not encyclopedic - Longhair | Talk 09:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the cartoon is a copyvio this must be deleted. However the article is pretty funny, so if the copyright issue is sorted out I suggest a BJAODN. Sjakkalle 10:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Just isnt that funny enough for inclusion in BJAODN. Megan1967 03:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, silly original research. Too intentional for BJAODN. --Angr/_comhrá 05:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I found this whole article pretty dumb actually, it explains in great detail something that should be obvious at first sight. Delete, I wouldn't recommend mentioning it anywhere nor in BJAODN. Radiant_* 08:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Hard, long-lasting delete. Pointless essay. Nestea 02:06, 29 Apr 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.