Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construct additional pylons
- 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Construct additional pylons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is a reference to a fad that has been deleted multiple times and protected from recreation. As such it is non-notable. JuJube (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO and possible speedy if it is a recreation of previously deleted material, which I can't see as Im not an admin. Pharmboy (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks sources, so currently fails WP:N. I highly doubt that reliable sources can be found either, so probably fails WP:V as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I dont think "a phrase commonly used in [snip] random animations" qualifies as encyclopedic. (What is a "Youtube Poop" ?) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A video put together from random clips in random order with random effects applied (often repeating the same clip up to ten times). I admit to finding some of them funny, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. JuJube (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (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.