Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Squeaky

: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. Nothing worth salvaging, a complete rewrite would be needed if at all. Tone 22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Mr. Squeaky]]=

:{{la|Mr. Squeaky}} ([{{fullurl:Mr. Squeaky|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Squeaky}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested PROD. Yeah, I know it's mostly gibberish, but it's not nonsense enough for G1 (because the meaning can be understood). Fails G3 and A1 as well, so it's here as a bunch of references to fictional stuff. So Why 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete There is no reason to expend a lot of process on this gibberish. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
DELETE: non-notable action that supposedly occurred in one episode of one TV show. Agree with User:Miami33139, no need to spend a lot of time on this. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Miami33139. Although I think it is just a test page. If you think it is, reply to this and I will kindly remind him that he should use the Sandbox on his talk page. calvinps (Talk) 00:04 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not gibberish at all. It's an attempt to document a single motif from a TV sitcom that never progressed beyond the pilot stage. If you've never heard of the sitcom, then read I'm Gonna Git You Sucka#Spin-off. It's not a part of the sitcom that is documented in depth in multiple independent reliable sources, and so does not satisfy our notability criteria. Indeed, it isn't even verifiable, since no sources that I can find document any such thing, and the only way for readers to verify the content would be to find a recording of the TV show somewhere and watch it. But it is, contrary to the claims made above, neither vandalism, nor context-free (A Wikipedia search for "Hammer, Slamer, and Slade" brought up the aforelinked page.), nor a test page. It's a (presumably) good-faith attempt to write an article on a subject that is not article-worthy, since the world has yet to document it as a subject in its own right, or even document it at all. No speedy deletion criteria apply. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete I removed the speedy tag, as it doesn't meet WP:CSD#G1, but it most certainly deserves deletion. Could conceivably be speedied under WP:CSD#A1; I'll leave that to the discretion of another admin. faithless (^speak) 10:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As I declined it already, re-tagging was incorrect anyway. It does not fit G1 and A1 so we have to go through this. So Why 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Unreadable, without sources, no notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there anything that can be salvaged and added to Hammer, Slammer, and Slade? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 27 January 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.