Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealth clown


 * 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. Consensus is clearly to delete. The comparison with Rickrolling would only be valid if this subject had significant coverage in independent sources (Rickrolling has 65 references, and 19 "further reading" references). This article has *1* reference, to a very minor mention in a YouTube video. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Stealth clown

 * – (View AfD)

Possible attack page, and Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This was NOT an attack page, and I've posted a source now. Thank you.JHHster (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, it isn't an attack page. If anyone is interested in the YouTube link, you can save some time and skip the first 4 minutes; 'stealth clown' is mentioned at the end. Given this article is basically about a YouTube video, I think it can probably be speedy deleted as WP:Criteria for speedy deletion - web content. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that although it probably wasn't intended to be an attack page, it was within CSD G10 (which it why I didn't use the attack warning template). Although the attack content has been removed there is still no evidence of coverage from reliable sources. snigbrook (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a potential meme. If you look up videos about it, or google it, you will find many things. I've heard it on Xbox LIVE all the time, so it's not "Basically about a YouTube video".67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an article about web content that doesn't indicate why it's significant, so it can speedy deleted under WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Im wondering if you even read my last post. It's significant because it's funny and is turning into a meme, believe it or not.67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Alright, if you're going to take my article down, so be it. If you're going to though, you might as well take down "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling" because it doesn't "SHOW WHY IT'S SIGNIFICANT" and it's "AN ARTICLE BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO"67.114.107.235 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article doesn't even assert any notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Could probably be speedied. Quantpole (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as article fails WP:NEO. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:50, 22 June 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.