Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waspard

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.

[edit] Waspard

The result was snowball delete as obvious hoax. JDoorjam Talk 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Article about Waspard, attempting to extend a practical joke in Robert Popper's books, The Timewaster's Letters. Apt really. (FYI: google search) Mr Stephen 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm you obviously missed the point about Robin Cooper, for that was name, and his book. It was a waste of time in trying to educate people about the finer things in the world, such as waspard, I thought that might be something that wikipedia might understand and support. Mjenkins —The preceding comment was Mjenkins (talk • contribs) first contribution.

I refer users to my notice on the page, regarding the encyclopaedia I own from the times of the Empire. I am happy to photocopy and distribute the reference in my personal collection (I am sure that this tome is now public domain!). Jamesr84

Thank you for your support regarding my article - There are, few reliable sources on the topic on the internet regarding waspard. Although I am in possession of several reference papers, which include how to make ‘waspard’, and it is something which I have grown up with. I can quote several titles and there relevant ISBN numbers, which relate to waspard directly. Please take advantage of the address I provided, if you wish to make further research, Best-kept Secrets of the Woman’s Institute, traditional cookery and advice for the 21st century (ISBN 0-74323-897-4) Good Housekeeping Cookery Book, the classic cookery book completely revised. (ISBN 0-85223-420-1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs)

• There are, few reliable sources on the topic on the internet regarding waspard. Then this topic does not belong on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a tertiary source and thus articles need primary sources and references from outside sources to support them. Unless the defenders of this article can provide reliable sources about the subject of the article, delete this article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided two very reputable primary sources. I would hope that if the topic interests you enough you would consider reading them, maybe if you consider increasing the depth of your research you will conclude that this is a suitable page for Wikipedia and deserves a place here. Many Thanks P. Longhurst

• Strong delete Hoax article. Neither cookbook has any info about waspard in it. Wildthing61476 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Wildthing. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Uber No - Please support your demmands with an argument young sir and cite any sources, to not upset other members of the wikicommunity

Many thanks P. Longhurst

• Strong delete per nom. --Charlesknight 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Does a yellow jacket that lands on my hot dog count? No? Then, strong delete. --EngineerScotty 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Make that strong speedy delete. --EngineerScotty 22:10, 26 September 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.