- 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 as unverifiable, original research, neologism. Turnstep 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Colbert protologism; author removed speedy tag w/o explanation. Is anyone else sick of Colbert? I sure am. NawlinWiki 00:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable neologism, revelevant only to Wikipedia—the silliest kind of self-reference. I would delete on the spot as clearly unsuitable for the encyclopedia, except that (depressingly) it doesn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion. But I'm tempted, believe me. I would like to note, however, that I'm not sick of Mr. Colbert in the slightest; he has a wonderful show. ;) -- SCZenz 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedily, as an article with this title was deleted before. Why wasn't this prod'd? Morgan Wick 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered speedying, but the original speedy (as "patent nonsense") wasn't really valid so the repost under G4 wouldn't have been either. As for prodding, the author (or another person whose interest in humor outweighs their comittment to Wikipedia) would almost certainly have removed it quickly. -- SCZenz 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since the creator quickly protested the AFD, it's pretty clear in hindsight the prod would have failed. hateless 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I'm not sick of Colbert, but I am sick of vandals adding Colbert-related nonsense. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete This is a term referring to Colbert-inspired vandalism on Wikipedia. It is referring to something that actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundra X (talk • contribs)
- Delete. I'm a fan of Colbert. But just like Jesus, whom I'm also a fan of, their zealots are a bit of a pain. hateless 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. --physicq210 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn protologism, no google hits, no nothing. Can this be speedied per WP:SNOW? --Zoz (t) 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme speedy delete, attempt to sidestep the Colbert vandalism by creating an article on it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and trample with three times thirty elephants. Antandrus (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable neologism, sillinest informations in encyclopedia. Colbert vandalism by creating article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. –RHolton≡– 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I saw this term get coined, it was just a joke. Can't believe someone actually made an article out of this. Konman72 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colbert coined "Wikiality". This is just completely made up. Morgan Wick 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obviously a neologism. Kalani [talk] 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Wouldnt this be a speedy - vanity?SynergeticMaggot 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is a Deadly Sin, not a criterion for speedy deletion. You may be thinking of CSD A7, which deals with persons or groups with "no assertion of notability," and is often applicable for vanity articles. -- SCZenz 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete more colbert attack junk Betacommand 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Selmo 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as soon as possible per WP:SNOW — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SELF CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and protect from re-creation as a self-referential neologism. I saw this on ANI and was like, "I sure hope no one makes an article on this", and sure enough... --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Protect and delete: This is obvious nonsense. Please protect since this article has been deleted twice before. --Hetar 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because I've always enjoyed jumping on bandwagons VoiceOfReason 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's the voice of reason! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Please. Non-notable neologism. alphaChimp laudare 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, and protect from re-creation. -/- Warren 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Why has this not been deleted yet? Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.