Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oofo


 * 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. Punkmorten 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oofo
Unverifiable/essay/original research. I'm sure there are articles we already have that duplicate this. I couldn't find relevant Ghits for "Oofo," most of the stuff I did get seems to be complete nonsense. Mango juice talk 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: if it's not nonsense (and the article when I tagged it for speedy delete sure read like nonsense to me), then it is deletable for the reasons the nominator already said. Fram 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could read it, it wasn't patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is content that is irredemably incomprehensible, not content that is a fabrication. Uncle G 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true: the second reason in Patent nonsense is "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.". I could read it, but I couldn't grasp what it was supposed to be about. An article that uses the word "mawsomity" and sentences like "Oofos are highly depreciative of pie, muffins, cheese, and other excessively clichéd soidisantly entitled "random" edible materials that are usually the subject of an unnatural and untrue obsession." fits the second definition of patent nonsense quite nicely. Fram 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it here because I understood it. This is about the use of things like "O_O" or "O_o" to make little ascii art for eyes.  See Emoticon.  Actually, it's somewhat covered there already.  I would propose a redirect, but I couldn't even verify the term "oofo" refers to this.  The last section IS patent nonsense, but the article is pretty comprehensible, if written way out of encyclopedic style.  Mango juice talk 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understood it, too, and immediately thought of emoticon when I read the article. I echo all of what Mangojuice has just written.  Uncle G 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't think "nonsense" is the issue here... unverified (and unverifiable at least by my investigation) original research is the real problem with a strong indication this is a protologism. The poor writing is an editorial concern.--Isotope23 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, patent nonsense does get overused, but this article seems to qualify. Recury 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified, original research essay.--Isotope23 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete O_O Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 7 September 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.