Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snipe hunts

: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. ÷seresin 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[List of snipe hunts]]=

:{{la|List of snipe hunts}} ([{{fullurl:List of snipe hunts|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snipe hunts}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Amusing. But it belongs in Urban Dictionary rather than here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes, amusing (although some of them I saw were wrong/incomplete), but still an indiscriminate list of never ending WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2009
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Amusing in parts but not encyclopedic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete keep Unless it can Needs to be improved by solid sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I created the page to try to settle some of the long back and forth that has gone on at Snipe hunt over putting this kind of stuff in and then taking it out again. I agreed that it does not belong in the main article, but it keeps creeping back in and I thought this may satisfy both camps. I don't see it as much different than other problematically long lists like List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I suppose I can see the WP:OR argument though that may be a more philosophical battle that is being waged in other List discussions like above. Either way I am fine with the decision reached here. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Week keep I would normally have said "merge to snipe hunt" but I can understand why people would have kicked this out of there. Although this list seems to have been compiled from multiple contributors, I suspect that there have been enough practical jokers and victims that most of these have also been mentioned in verifiable sources. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I would add "Nails with the head on the bottom so they can be hammered in from underneath", if I had better documentation for it. Should someone have said, "It is already in the Urban dictionary, and I will add a link to that in Snipe Hunts", I might have voted Weak Keep. "(fake quotes, rhetorical paraphrase):Could be added by someone at some supposed future time, assuming they can replicate the work of multiple contributors over a great deal of time, to Urban Dictionary" is a considerably less compelling argument to me. And btw, address or link to Urban Dictionary, please? Anarchangel (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nowimnthing.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (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.