Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York conspiracy theory

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN. – AB CD 23:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:New York conspiracy theory

Yes, that's right - a talk page, and one with no article. It's also silly to the point of being pathetic, IMHO. Grutness|^hello? 06:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hah. That's funny. --Asriel86 06:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, you wouldn't believe it until you see it. --bainer 06:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Conspiracy is non-notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is this true??? Lectonar 08:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, bordering on nonsense. Megan1967
Orphaned talk pages can usually be Speedied. android↔talk 12:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- This occurred to me, too. But from reading what it actually says, and from checking the deletion log for New York conspiracy theory, it appears that this isn't an orphaned talk page. It's an article page that has been erroneously, and somewhat bizarrely, created as a talk page. Uncle G 13:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Delete, almost tempted to vote a BJAODN on this, but not really funny enough. Jokes there should be good ones. (Yes I know the "B" stands for "Bad") Sjakkalle 13:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. For a one liner, it's pretty badly funny - in combination with the fact that it's a talk page w/no article, I'd say it qualifies for BJAODN.-- 8^D ^gab 18:39, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
This article is grammatically incorrect, presupposes the rather odd idea that a city is a sentient entity, and (both by its title and its content) presents something as a conspiracy theory when it would (the other problems aside) be simply an ordinary opinion. Delete. Uncle G 13:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
BJAODN. It made me laugh. Dave the Red (talk) 18:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe I'm just being uptight, but I think it's kinda lame. Linuxbeak 21:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no BJAODN. Uncle G's comments are valid. This one-liner set off my lameness filter, not my laughter. I'm almost tempted to write an article about how (even 250 miles away upstate) some reporters think we all are fans of the Yankees or Mets, whichever one is winning at the time. But that's not encyclopedic either. Barno 02:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could have been speedied as patent nonsense, but doesn't deserve BJAODN. Rick K 05:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN How long did this talk page survive before being caught? If it was an article page, it would've been deleted in less than a day. - 69.216.232.184 00:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to look at these too. - 69.216.232.184 00:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Talk:Single-vowel alphabet
  - Talk:Derek Cheater
BJAODN - 68.72.118.244 21:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN --cesarb 17:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Got a nice little laugh out of this one. --Idont Havaname 03:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if the one line of content was on the article page, it would either qualify as original research or patent nonsense. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Instant vision of that New Yorker cover. Plus really funny to anyone who's ever been to Plattsburgh. --Mothperson 16:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN - 68.72.114.32 21:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahh! Sockpuppet! Die! Pain! Horror! Nastiness! No vote. ugen 64 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.