Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations

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 was semi-speedy delete, WP:SNOW. Chick Bowen 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratufuckulations

Congratufuckulations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsourced WP:NEO. JDtalk 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Palfrey 16:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NEO applies. We don't need an infinite collection of articles for every instance in which the F-bomb can be used as an infix. --Kinu t/c 19:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete why are we wasting time taking this seriously? I guess because... uh...--Ling.Nut 19:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Defuckinglete because its funny to use ironic votes, and everyone else's arguments. —Mitaphane talk 00:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This made-up article is probably just some prankster on wikipedia. Why are we wasting valuable time ACTUALLY considering what to do?! If someone can answer this question, i'll rethink my opinion:

Why SHOULDN'T we delete the article?-ECH3LON 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neof#cker.--Húsönd 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuckin' delete, belongs on UrbDic, not here. riana_dzasta 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Just stupid. Xdenizen 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    Closing admin will kindly see this user's talk page. riana_dzasta (talk • contribs • count) 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not a valid arguFuckinment to be used against deFuckinletion. ;-) Ohconfucius 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • K33p3rs j33p3rs!!11one. Previous person brings up an important point. What would happen to Wikipedia if we keep deleting such exemplary articles??? In-fucking-credible. We should keep this so we can bring it up to FA status! --C S (Talk) 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT urban dictionary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Resolute 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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.