Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awkward turtle

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 delete. Shanel 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense or a hoax CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• del nonnotable yet fad. mikka (t) 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Link even look like a hoax. pschemp | talk 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 10:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete On what grounds is it a hoax? If people do it, as the article states, and in the places the article states -- colleges across the country -- and a good deal of widely varied sources refer to it, what makes this a 'hoax'? Unsigned by User:Warnthepenguins
• Delete. Nonsensical. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as non-notable gesture. Seems quite real, see the newspaper article. Also googling for awkward turtle hand finds a few blog-type descriptions of this. But notability seems to be lacking if the same standards are applied as to neologisms. Weregerbil 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Do not delete' The Awkward Turtle does happen accross the country on college campuses; just last weekend I visited a friend in Boston and did the Awkward turtle, and HIS FRIENDS knew what I was doing and mimed it back. The entry is legit.129.244.129.126
• Delete Legit maybe, not-notable definitely --Ruby 15:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is perfectly valid and interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.244.43.144 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a recent phenomenon dating back last year with few if any verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has several outside corroberating sources, so is obviously not a hoax, and it will be interesting to see the trend as it spreads. DogFog 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also: what is the difference between making a wiki about Awkward Turtle and making a wiki about the obnoxious and equally non-notable The Game? Both are relatively recent memes, and Awkward Turtle has the advantage of being something outside of its own propagation, unlike the Amwayesque Game. --Warnthepenguins 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe in a few years, if it becomes mainstream. Wikipedia recognizes viral memes, it doesn't spread them. Jaxal1 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It definitely occurs, it's not a hoax, and I don't even understand where the nonsense vote comes from. I can possibly see the neologism issue, but most people who are voting to delete as a hoax or unverifiable, neither of which are accurate.--nhinchey 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Comparisons to The Game are completely off base: that was noted in a MacWorld article, which carries significantly more clout per WP:V than one mention in Brown's daily rag earlier this month. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Very few Googles, recently created, originates in colllege... Guy 23:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Though the Brown link is a step in the direction of verifiability, it sounds like it could be a fairly small, passing fad. Maybe revisit it in a year? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It might be notable in the future but it definitely isn't now. JoshuaZ 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources? --Jay(Reply) 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! It's very valid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.19.112 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm, we have four IP addresses voting, none of which have any wikipedia contributions prior, all voting for keep, with their strongest argument being anecdotal. Guys, you may want to read up a bit on what the rules and guidelines are for articles on Wikipedia, and please look over the guidlines for AfDs. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as not-quite-notable yet. If a newspaper article could be found mentioning that Olympian performing it, that might do it, but one newspaper article about a specific campus is not good enough. Turnstep 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. Stifle 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Retarded. And this guy is using sock puppets. This is an encyclopedia.MiracleMat 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe an article in five years if it truly catches on. (I think not - it's rather too complicated for a simple gesture.) Denni ☯ 04:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Consider for deletion when not in regular use. Good reference to American culture to us non-americans.--Factorylad 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why it should be deleted.  Grue  18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No part of Wikipedia needs to be 'mainstream' to be considered legitimate. It is clearly not a hoax, and even if you argued that it started as a hoax, it has gained a notable following at both the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University. Wikipedia's goal is to be on top of these kinds of things. When I first saw the awkward turtle, the first thing I did was to check if Wikipedia knew of it before I believed that existed.

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.