Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat bomb


 * 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   Speedy keep Clue-bat bomb is more like it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bat bomb

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Patent nonsense LostSpider (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete This article is a complete work of fiction and must not be presented as a genuine article LostSpider (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep stupid idea but real and covered by lots of sources (primarily due to its stupidity / humour value). Definitely not a hoax and not fiction. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the nominator is incorrect, this is not fiction and not nonsense (though it is weird, for sure). The references in the article are legit, though there could be more. I have also read about the bat bomb in this book but I no longer have a copy so I can't add it as a reference. There is also this book entirely dedicated to the subject. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Well-documented with multiple sources that pass muster. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY and the WP:GNG. One of those "stranger than fiction" stories, but the refs check out. — Satori Son 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.  Suggest quick closure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and think about WP:SNOW Apparently there's a misunderstanding of what the phrase "patent nonsense" refers to in WP:SPEEDY. There are articles that are written in a nonsensical fashion, and then there are well-written articles in Wikipedia about notable bad ideas, and this is the latter.  The nomination appears to be the first and only contribution from the nominator, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was done for the fun of watching the reaction.  Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (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.