Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flip'n'tuck


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Flip'n'tuck


Possible original research, google search returns nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naconkantari (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as nonsense. TheRingess 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP It's not original research. I know because my friends use this and I saw it used on an episode of "Surreal Life" 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as ridiculousness. Also WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Fan1967 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as utter nonsense. --DarkAudit 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a non-fictional reference is found. (Good luck!) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I asked a bunch of people if they knew what flip'n'tuck was...and I got a bunch of no's, until i asked this person:ImNickManning: do you know what the flip'n'tuck method is?

ImNickManning: YO ANSWER ME

Gottaluvme250: yes

ImNickManning: thank you

also...why would anyone have a website with the word "flip'n'tuck"...its more of an underground thing

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 20:23, June 25, 2006


 * However, you need to find a reference from a reliable source. This doesn't include random people you poll. Sorry. But good luck! (Also, please don't try to vote more than once, you might confuse the closing admin into thinking one side has more support than it does. Instead, write coment if you have more to say. I struck out your second vote for you.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as entirely original research. Molerat 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per a random neologism, especially if its unverifiable by normal methodsm, which appears to be the case. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable neologism. Fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sorry, but the "verification" above just makes me laugh. Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of people have heard of it, and lots of people use it. Maybe not specifically as "flip'n'tuck", but some variation of that.  If baseball euphemism is an article, this should be as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.179.168 (talk • contribs)


 * keep there are a lot of other articles on this site that have made me laugh at the stupidity of them. this isn't one of the more ridiculous ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.179.168 (talk • contribs) 22:30, June 25, 2006
 * Please do not vote twice, you might confuse the closing administrator (who determines the outcome) into thinking one side has more support than it does. If you want to write more, use comment instead. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 66's only edits are on this topic. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

comment IT WASNT A JOKE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs)
 * BJ-ify ~ trialsanderrors 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That just makes it funnier. Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet hell, please just delete this now. Do we really need to wait 5-to-7 days? Is this not obvious? -- Kicking222 03:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete nonsense and possible neologism. Aritle may not be in an encyclopædic tone.  --Starionwolf 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn neologism, and the plural of penis is penes or penises not penii. -- E ivindt@c 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO, not a dictionary. --DaveG12345 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not to assume bad faith or anyting, but I am seriously skeptical of any contribution made by one Nickmanning214, the man who has brought us "wenis" and other garbage.  Someone needs to keep an eye on him.  ---Charles 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The wenis is a legitimate part of the body and I am appaled that it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs)
 * It is no more legitimate than any of your other "contributions," and if anything is appalling it's the fact that you have not yet been blocked. ---Charles 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My friend put it in their xanga, and look at the responses recieved:
 * I actually have been around bad Flip'n Tuck experiences, just like those described in the article.... ><;Posted 6/25/2006 at 11:04 PM by deutschgirl90 - delete - block user


 * that technique got me through jr. high unscathed Posted 6/27/2006 at 8:12 PM by sitgilichit - delete - block user


 * got me through elementary school, got me through jr high, now its getting me tyhrough highschool Posted 6/27/2006 at 8:59 PM by nickmanning214 - delete


 * yeah thats one of my various methods Posted 6/28/2006 at 10:53 AM by Frodoanderson - delete - block user
 * its on my xanga http://www.xanga.com/nickmanning214 (i didnt put it on, my friend who has my password did)
 * Comment A Xanga page (especially your own Xanga page) is not remotely considered a reliable source. Fan1967 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I DONT HAVE A REALIABLE SOURCE! Is a reliable source really necessary for an article like this one? I mean, all I did was take a legitimate thing, and call it a fairly unknown name.  Cmon guys...youv'e all flipped and tucked, haven't you?  Don't you think it deserves some attention on this site?
 * No. Fan1967 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, probably made up or a local term. Royalbroil 04:50, 30 June 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.