Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawgism


 * 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 Delete per WP:G3 by DGG. Non-admin closure. D ARTH P ANDA duel 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawgism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible Original Research, no refs, ghits for "Dawgism" show mostly blogs, unknown if this is our "Dawgism" thing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep it for now - the article is still under process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsp greenday (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete All I found was BlogSpot with a link to MySpace seems to be entirely OR and no chances of finding any reliable sources. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  06:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — same as above but also with blogspot. Are there any verifiable, third party sources establishing notability of this religion? I say because I cannot find any. MuZemike  ( talk ) 09:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense neologism. Delete, and perhaps speedy/snowball delete on the grounds that an article about something you have invented is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a made up culture - but keep it for its humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsp greenday (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if being funny was a reason to keep things, this is not funny in any way. JuJube (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Synchronism (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as vandalism.


 * 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.