Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randomosity comedy


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Randomosity comedy

 * — (View AfD)

Not notable, unsourced, neologistic title. Examples section is a relatively innocuous form of OR. Also, not funny. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Google finds no hits. Chovain 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V. MER-C 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, OR. (And its not even funny.) --Sable232 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, is WP:OR, no WP:RS indicating that this is a notable form of comedy. -- Kinu t /c  07:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no references, no indication this isn't just a neologism. --Folantin 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above, and it's likely a hoax. Jayden54 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest of Delete never has an article deserved a "dumb" vote more. Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even Stronger Delete Has anybody bothered to point out to the author of this article that there is already a well known term for this? It's called (wait for it...) a "Non sequitur" (GASP!). Wavy G 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - see WP:DUMB and WP:NFT. Now those pages are funny. This one isn't. Moreschi Deletion! 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much stronger than Wavy G delete Neologigism FirefoxMan 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Thank-you to above users for flagging issues with this article. This is a new term.  I am currently looking for sources to attest it, as per wiki guidelines.  Perhaps too early to be an article?  More published material required.  However, it is not a hoax.  It should perhaps be noted that subjective opinions as to what is or isn't funny should be left out of a valid debate over this article's legitimacy.  Once again, many thanks for all your help.  I am trying to correct as instructed.  Philph E. Burbs 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anti-humor. This is simply another name for a non-joke, by the looks of it. Grutness...wha?  00:49, 22 December 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.