Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strike Three and Underline


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Strike Three and Underline

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Completely unsourced article, which is both unsourceable enough and highly implausible as to what it describes, that I strongly suspect a WP:HOAX. Sample text: "With the revival of statutory interpretation brought about by the jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia, groups such as The Heritage Foundation and the ACLU wanted to teach children about the basics of legislation in a fun way." Leaving aside the vanishingly low likelihood of the Heritage Foundation and the ACLU collaborating on anything, these lessons were apparently taught by a boy and a green pipe cleaner -- and the show was eventually cancelled because "with the Internet increasingly playing a role in legislation editing, methods of legislation editing became too diverse to ensure most children watching had easy access to put into practice what the show presented," because apparently children are actually directly involved in the legislative process or something. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody can properly source that this ever really existed, but as things stand right now I'm detecting a rather strong aroma of bullshit. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as almost-definite WP:HOAX. Not even a bare mention of such a show can be found outside the article itself (and the usual mirrors that surface). Layzner (Talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. Nothing found with a Google search and no sources. Obvious hoax.  CatcherStorm    talk   17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it's not a hoax, it certainly isn't notable. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (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.