Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JIMMY
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy Esteffect 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just pure nonsense. I don't see any good way to make this into a real article. Strong Delete. Georgia guy 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism. "it is the hope of the founding partners that JIM becomes a thorough part of the American lexicon and it is heard in multi-media use" means "We made this up one day, it's completely unsourced, and we want to use Wikipedia to promote it." --Elkman - (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Metamagician3000 01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not nonsense, it's just a silly joke. Delete per User:Elkman. — Hillel 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "A Wikipedia entry that makes no sense" should be Jimmified. Er, I mean deleted. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading this, I feel that I've been jimmied(sp). Nah, I am sticking with duped. Delete junyor 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen why was this even up for deletion? I can't believe it wasn't just immediately deleted outright without a vote. Honestly, who would vote to keep this page? Even Jimmy doesn't want it to survive that much. -- Kicking222 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kicking. Because (although it seems that User:Hahnchen below disagrees with me on that point) this article does not clearly match any speedy deletion criteria. According to guidelines, hoaxes and implausible theories (and ridiculous claims like the ones in this article) are not considered candidates for speedy deletion and have to follow the afd route. — Hillel 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy - Nonsense, rubbish, hoax. - Hahnchen 02:09, 22 April 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.