Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project


 * 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   keep, as people seem willing to take this on and improve it. It's got reliableish) sources, and doesn't seem to have been created in bad faith. User:Zeibura - this is your task from henceforth. The cabal has spoken! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOLCat Bible Translation Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

User:Deb speedily deleted this as a website not asserting significance. I asked for it to be restored as I don't believe it was a valid speedy given the news coverage. I do think it needs this AfD though, because the news coverage may just make it fail WP:NOT. I'm kind of neutral on this one, but would like to hear what others think about it. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into lolcat, is NN as stand-alone. I can't believe this has credible citations. It boggles the mind. Wow. Doc Strange (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't object to a merger into the lolcat article, as long as this isn't given undue weight in that.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise this had been speedied, as if... "Spinoffs of geekish stuff" it may be, this has coverage and therefore is notable somewhere or other, but if the fact that it has an article of its own really hurts peoples' heads that much, go ahead and merge into lolcat, choices between merging and splitting have long since not bothered me and the title redirecting to the lolcat article is logical, so I'm neutral on this. I did think there may be more sources out there than those 3 I managed to find initially but I can't seem to find any. Maybe in a few months time, but obviously WP:CRYSTAL, so if more sources can be found great, if not then merge at will until it achieves similar notability to, say, LOLCODE. So basically, keep or merge, whatever, but don't just delete it. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, it does site sources, and further, the news story was slashdotted. I believe this satisfies WP:WEB.  I'd love to vote merge, but I can't find a policy/guideline to justify it. -Verdatum (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge If its significance can be determined, I think it should be kept (per Verdatum). If not, I think it should be merged with lolcat, per Doc Strange.
 * Sorry, forgot to sign that. Trvsdrlng (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into lolcat, as a single sentence. NN on its own. Fin©™ 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, here's an idea. There've been a few discussions on Talk:Lolcat about the fact that "lolrus" redirects to "lolcat" even though there's nothing about the lolrus in that article. That, and this AfD, have given me this idea: Add a section to the lolcat article titled "Spinoffs" or "Influences", or something in that vein, with three subheadings: one for lolcatbible containing this content, one for lolrus and one with a brief overview of LOLCODE with a see also link, and with "lolrus" and this redirecting to their sub-sections. I'd be happy to have a go at writing this, if the result of this AfD isn't delete (which it doesn't look like it will be). - Zeibura (Talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (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.