- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a crystal ball, until there are some reliable sources this should not have an article. Pity NOT violations are not speedyable hehe. Until(1 == 2) 03:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The only source named in the article is an admitted rumour! Absolutely unverifiable. Not worthy of inclusion until/unless the reliable sources come along. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Yannick 03:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I first saw this "rumor" on the Seth MacFarlane page. Of course, due to WP:BLP and WP:V, I had to remove it. Miranda 03:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete per nom. This is pure rumor and speculation, and it therefore fails or violates WP:NOT#CBALL, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR (from the latter in this case, WP:COI and WP:NOT#OR), WP:NPOV (as it inherently takes a side in a dispute over future events), WP:NOT#MIRROR as it parrots information from another site, for similar reasons, WP:NOT#BLOG, and also every good bit of sense, decency, and order that Wikipedia has. Really, it should've been a speedy deletion. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show me which speedy criteria it satisfies, I will speedy it. But WP:NOT violations are explicitly not speedyable. Until(1 == 2) 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I'd fall back on WP:IAR myself. I know the rules say hoaxes aren't speedy-deleteable on that account, but this article is obviously unencyclopedic, useless, and to some extent harmful. Also, there's no evident objection to this article being deleted and no-one would be offended by its loss. But maybe that's all a bit much... it's your call really. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the article the same way, and it doesn't do anything that pushes it into the realm of speedy deletion. At least with the AfD, we declare outright that no, it doesn't belong on the Wikipedia (and can then speedy delete it under the criterion for recreating deleted material if it comes back). —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also thing {{DbIAR}} applies, however since I nominated this, I would have to ignore all rules twice to delete it. Until(1 == 2) 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article about a rumor that cites a rumor as its source. Doesn't get any more unverifiable than that. Spellcast 11:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per citations of Thesocialistesq above, no supporting news articles found from reliable sources. I wish South Park, Family Guy, and Simpsons would team up and do a movie, but I promise not to start internet rumors about it (and then document the rumor on Wikipedia). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 17:08, 22 July 2007 (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.