Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck Kung Fu


 * 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 article has been sent to Copyright problems. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Duck Kung Fu
spoof? Flapdragon 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio. Was nominated for A8 speedy, but does not really satisfy the criteria. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio as well. I didn't catch it the first time, but now that it's been pointed out it's pretty obvious. --Martin Osterman 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL - trying to argue hoax yet its a copyvio. The two are mutually exclusive, no? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How so? I'm intrigued. Flapdragon 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No copyvio material in BJAODN? Bmdavll talk 06:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the original is a hoax and the article's a copy-paste from there, then it's a copyvio hoax. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete copyvio. Can't send it to BJAODN without licensing issues :( Stifle 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the above. It really deserves the bum's rush. B.Wind 23:55, 9 December 2005 (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.