Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References in Lemmings level names


 * 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   speedy delete. withdrawn by principal author  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

References in Lemmings level names

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It's an original research, it's not notable, and fancruft. Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuke 10 second countdown, and delete.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely ridiculous. Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - This was the second edit, for context. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuke for being unsourced original research. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Oh my God.  Whenever somebody drags out the old "Why can't we just keep every article? How bad can they be?" we should show them this, they'll see the light real quick. I think this has a fair shot at the title of Worst Article Idea Ever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Reach Out to the Truth 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - The main Lemmings article (should, IIRC last when I edited it) has a section suggesting the references but certainly not a fully out-and-out list. --M ASEM (t) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball. It is not completely ridiculous, nor is it worst idea ever. What it is, is unsourced OR for a non-notable topic. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I hereby challenge you to find a worse one on Wikipedia. Ordinary vandalism doesn't count. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would Wp:Articles for deletion/Bacon on The Simpsons count? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a bad one, but I'd say it doesn't quite count as it was apparently created tounge-in-cheek as part of the Bacon Challenge rather than a serious article attempt. Good find though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete blatant original research, not notable. Possible copyright violation. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the names of the lemmings levels was the subject of a New Yorker article by Eric Alterman in 1998, which was expanded into a forthcoming massive study of the effects of game level names on our culture's obsession with race, gender, violence, and know-nothingism, along with exposing links between the Jesuits and subliminal propaganda found in them, from the New Press, this october. It has won advance praise from top academics, and has been preemptively banned by the Vatican in italy, spain, and the philippines. I dont have the references right now, but i will definitely add them as soon as im given immunity from deletions. (oh, and :) (that means im actually suggesting Delete))Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that could be used in the main Lemmings article, rather than this stand-alone mince.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2010 (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.