Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickled punks


 * 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:46Z 

Pickled punks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion as 'in bad taste', which is a bad speedy reason. Google bears out the usage of this phrase, though not with any reliable sources that I can find, and it's non-notable in any case. Opabinia regalis 06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, irrelevant neologism. Krimpet 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Freak show Delete as neologism, no place for it exists in other related. Flakeloaf 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides being in bad taste, the article is unsourced. It's probably not a neologism (it's probably an old term), but it is not a notable phenomenon. --N Shar 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article text was by a red author whose only contribution was that one and a link to it. - grubber 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for deleting this article, but "the author didn't write anything else and never made a user page" is hardly a reason to delete something, and thinking that way is a bad habit to get into. Opabinia regalis 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with new guys. But when it comes to trying to guess whether we should take a controversial page seriously or not, the fact that the user had only two edits and he hasn't been back in 11 months -- that seems like reasonable evidence to support that this page is not legit. It's not the only evidence, nor is it sufficient to justify deletion. But it should be considered. - grubber 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That I can agree with. Opabinia regalis 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and non-notable... and "ewwwww". --Candy-Panda 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject. "Disturbing" is not a reason for deletion.  This was a common feature of circus sideshows, just as a "Lobster boy" and a "bearded lady."  And (purely speculative, here) this may have possibly led to the term "punk," as it is used in popular culture today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wavy G (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't suppose you have a reliable source to support this claim, do you? Opabinia regalis 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, a reliable source for something I said was "purely speculative" on my part? No, it was just a hunch, hence, why I said that.  Perhaps somebody who knows something about the etymology of the term could answer that. Wavy G 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So your whole post was speculation, and not just the last sentence? Opabinia regalis 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Wavy G; "ewwwww" is not a reason for deletion, either. Tuvok  ^ Talk 09:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above two editors. Mathmo Talk 09:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Freak show. Totnesmartin 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT, should belong to wikitionary. Wooyi 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef, unsourced, neologism Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Freak show. Not a neologism, but a frequent attraction in traditional freak shows.  Also gets about 193,000 Ghits.  Edeans 04:19, 5 February 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.