Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Temple Explosion!


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Shirley Temple Explosion!
Nominate and vote for speedy deletion per CSD G1 as patently absurd nonsense. Delete as original research per UncleG's comment below. - Sensor 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not patent nonsense, which is text that is irredeemably incomprehensible, not simply text that is silly. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria.  This article that by its own admission is promoting a phrase made up by a schoolchild is original research, which is not a speedy deletion criterion.  The place for this is the author's own web site, not Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure seemed incomprehensible to me. Fine, then. Delete as original research. - Sensor 01:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Text such as "The thought randomly came to me while in Mrs. Hall's American History class." is comprehensible. The article is written in English, with reasonable spelling and punctuation, and has content that conveys meaning.  There's a distinction between nonsense, in the sense of untruth or fabrication, and patent nonsense.  Only the latter is speedily deletable.  For the former, we wield our verifiability and no original research policies and come to AFD. Uncle G 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken. However, it seems somewhat odd to have such intense debate over whether an article containing a sentence like "I was excted [sic] with myself I introduced my new-found ridiculousness to my best friend Alaina Musich" should or should not be considered patent nonsense when it is plainly obvious that the article is a gag and irredeemably silly. I suppose this is better left for the debate over deletion reform.  - Sensor 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like nonsense to me --Henrygb 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete slowly. Kappa 01:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense Olorin28 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete public domain nonsense. Gazpacho 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete quickly  It smells to me like someone has deliberately written something stupid and signed a classmate's name at the bottom.  ICBW.  Ben Aveling 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, I took out the names. Kappa 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why was this marked as a speedy deletion and nominated on AfD, before the speedy deletion tag was found to be improper? -- Kjkolb 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-admitted neologism and original research. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Just does not belong in an encyclopedia. it's vanity, and irrelevant to anything. GhostGirl 08:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under G3 as silly vandalism. This is plainly not an attempt to coin a neologism or anything like that; it is an attempt to vandalize Wikipedia through the addition of a silly article. --Aquillion 09:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G3 per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, G3 as per Aquillion's comment on "silly vandalism". ERcheck 14:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete though I may have to find some reason in the future to use this term. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:24, 6 November 2005 (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.