Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all


 * 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 killer delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Neologism. Something a computer said in a presentation of beta software a few days ago is not notable enough for Wikipedia. (See Recentism) -/- Warren 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Koffieyahoo 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on the software, I think (but then, I have a silly sense of humour sometimes) BigHaz 07:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; I've added information about this to the Development of Windows Vista article, as it is appropriate there. -/- Warren 08:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it has a note in Development of Windows Vista. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Finish" the merge and be done with it (redirect?). Ace of Risk 12:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Completely non-notable (though humorous). Utterly non-encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Development of Windows Vista, as it's a better place for the information, and a redirect can help finding it. --cesarb 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete select all, with a clap of Joycean thunder. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete that with a Twainian magic word: Constantinopolitanischerdudelsackspfeifenmachersgesellschafft! If it is still famous in six months, re-create. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove select all delete that aunt delete select all Let's recap: A few days ago, Microsoft falls victim to the Murphy's Law again... and now we're making an article about that. No. Just no. We don't have an article on Windows 98 Plug and Play presentation crash or anything. The thing is mentioned in Windows 98 though, as it should. As for popularity, well we have Slashdot subculture article already for explaining all silly injokes already, even when I don't think this is widespread enough yet since this happened only a few days ago. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And let me also add: This is yet another case of "interesting content was put in the article title", something I observed back in the day in Everything2. Title is title, not content, so this is a weak article. Articles about individual phrases should have a lot of content to justify their cumbersome titling. It's unlikely this article will ever gain the weight of "The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, just another goof that happened during a presentation. Yes, it's from one of the biggest software companies in the world, but that doesn't make the event encyclopedic or notable. At best a passing mention in the Vista development article is sufficient. -- Kinu t /c  14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ctrl-alt-delete nice neologism but it's just that a neologism --Whispering 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and if it's still in use in a year or so, maybe think about re-adding it if appropriate. -- 84.13.248.174 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Select all backspace, as above. +Fin 14:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Article will eventually have relevance, just as All Your Base does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.119.76 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is seen as relevant&mdash;when a good, citable sources mentions it as something of lasting importance&mdash;we can have an article about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable enough. Only worth a mention in another page. --Hohohob 10:11, 4 August 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.