Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freezing a wasp


 * 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 delete. Sr13 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Freezing a wasp

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod. Original Research/Hoax, supposedly a popular youtube trend/internet meme, a google search for "freezing a wasp" returns 8 hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia. Little context, no independent sources, very dubious notability. Creator of article said he would greatly expand the article within one week when he contested the Prod, it's now 7 days later and no improvements. Wingsandsword 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - if it's so popular, one would think there would be more out there discussing it. There doesn't seem to be. I did find a video in which someone froze a wasp and tied it onto a string, but it has a total of 969 views. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. -- Esurnir 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, you've gotta be kidding me. The lack of GHits seems to speak volumes as to this being non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR/hoax. Doczilla 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's just something you do to wasps, when you're bored and have nothing better to do. Well, that and write articles about it.   --Haemo 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per reasons above. Useight 05:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everyone before me. Nonsense.  Ford MF 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete -makes no sense, has no sources, just some hoax. Tynedanu 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominated for SD This article is a joke, why waste time with an AFD? Have nominated under Criteria: A1. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed --h2g2bob (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, very little content beyond ordinary dictionary definitions. NawlinWiki 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sounds like a misnomer anyway. More like inducing hypothermia in a wasp. ~ Infrangible 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete while laughing, non-notable, original reasearch. *Cremepuff  222*  19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the creator, I am sorry that I haven't had a chance yet to update it - but I have been very busy. Most of the confusion IMO is coming from the name of the article, which was a very poor choice - really I was trying to write a general article about stunning insects humanely. I *will* have time to write a better article this week. Best username yet 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make fun, but it seems like what you are saying is, "aside from the title and the content, this is a good article". Seems harmless to delete this article, and let you write your better article with a better title when you have time, yeah? Capmango 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy may work also, provides little content, no citations--♫Twinkler4♫ 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. However, thsi is not a speedy. It is not Patent nonsense so A1 doesn't apply, not is it "empty", and there is context. The problems is the content, and that is for AfD, not speedy, since it is a judgement call. DES (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS Bigdaddy1981 06:11, 11 June 2007 (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.