Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Chicken


 * 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. Shanel 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay Chicken
 Nn neologism/nonsense/hoax/cruft. Author removed speedy tag, added "holdon" tag but never gave a reason. Mangojuice 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC) See: Brian Posehn, Comedians of Comedy Posted by --RumpshakerNetwork 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only minor Ghits that actually reference this as an activity and it is documented as more of a gross out game.  Claim that it "...serves as a litmus test towards the greater acceptance and acknowledgement of homosexuality among young males in the wake of the raised profile of gay-themed content in the mainstream American media..." is not sourced and not WP:V. I don't think it is necessarily speedy material, but it seems to fall short of notability on pretty much every level, and seems to violate WP:NFT.--Isotope23 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This This is legit, and has started to gain widespread attention as part of comedian Brian Posehn's act which he used in the COMEDIANS OF COMEDY special. Brian Posehn and the Comedians of Comedy already have listings:
 * Above is the first Wikipedia edit from User:RumpshakerNetwork (talk • contribs)


 * Comment if this is the case, "Gay Chicken" still does not deserve its own entry. However, that info may be worth adding to the Brian Posehn page.  I tried to verify this and came up with a few ambiguous references from tv.com, tvrage, and tv tome and like sites.  Mangojuice 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Not sure, but I think this was a gag between two male characters on a sitcom (Scrubs, maybe?).  Otherwise NN. Fan1967 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this some sort of a hoax. this cannot possibly be article material. Crzrussian 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This This is a real thing. This was a real game (unfortunately) among my fraternity friends. Only sometimes did it get the name used here. The phenomenon is much more widespread than you might suppose. i would vote to keep this and watch it to see how it develops. 23 February 2006 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.186.6.18 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete. Non-notable game.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This This is notable and a relevant topic. Cross-referenced to several other topics, and has over 8 million hits on Google, and has widespread appeal and acceptability. There is no material evidence that this is a topic that should not be included here. 23 February 2006 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.17.34.55 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete as complete bollocks. Around 300 Googles, mostly about something else entirely. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless rubbish. Keresaspa 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This Well, I've heard of this game. And I saw some google hits on it, from people who were completely unrelated to one another, which means that knowledge of this game has spread beyond one social circle.  I think these folks could stand to flesh out their article, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted. 23 February 2006 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.24.162  (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:BALLS, WP:V, and the flood of socks. Stifle 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This It appears that the author is consolidating the definition. The title maybe suggestive of WP:BALLS but there is enough proof thus far of a persistent social phenomemon.  64.186.163.254 09:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment the preceding comment appeard to be signed by a registered user, but was added by User:64.186.163.254, so I have changed the signature. Mangojuice 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete wow somebody really is trying to do some ballot-stuffing here. this is non-notable.Crzrussian 21:23, 27 February 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.