Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightspitting

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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightspitting

Possible hoax, not verifiable  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; even if it is not a hoax, it looks nn. Schutz 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Practically the definition of nn. Wisco 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it could be verified, it is extremely nn. ManoaChild 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Reverted to undo vote tampering by User:67.186.72.36. Restoring his deleted comment here. ManoaChild 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete it I'm Tim Valenta, it's all true. Steve Nawara's sn is robotshiitcamel, he'll tell you it's all true. C'mon fellas.

    Notability is in the eye of the beholder. There's plenty of kids on the south side of Chicago who care about lightspitting. I could find a less notable article in five minutes. Like anything relating to Jackson Pollak.

    I care about lightspitting. I'm practically from California.

    -Greg Hunt

• DON'T DELETE; This is Benjamin of the South Side. Lightspitting is indeed very true and very fun. This should be known to everyone. Please, understand while it seems alien to most who read this it is used in places such as Norfolk, the far west of Japan, and even the Brixton underground.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.118.150 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2006.
• Delete per Wisco. Crunch 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's NN in any case Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wisco. Also - I moved the "vote" by anon user who placed his vote before the nomination text. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• How many people have to vouch for lightspitting before you leave my article alone. You have an entry for "beasting it" but this doesn't fly? Give me a break. The article will be expanded upon later, like every other article. If there is some type of vote, how do I cast my vote?

  Really, I'm practically from California.

  At least culture-wise

  • Only a few, but they need to vouch for it in print in a reputable publication such as an academic journal. Thank you for pointing out another article that does not belong here. Uncle G 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article is original research, being primary source material describing a previously undocumented practice. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which is what this article strongly resembles. Delete. Uncle G 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Or keep, as effective anti-drug propaganda. -- Krash 07:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Uncle G, what the fuck are you, the deletion police? I click on your name and all I see are four thousand articles for deletion that you support. Moreover, please explain to me why entries for every other piece-of-shit chatch phrase on the Internet gets popped into this oh-so-intelligent "people's encyclopedia" but this one, for some ridiculous reason, doesn't qualify? Do you waste all your time on this garbage, or do you spend an equal amount of time masturbating to Asian transexual amputee porn?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.111.48 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 January 2006.

Wow, "Uncle G" that's some good condescending talk. You must be a scientist or British, or a British scientist who shits ice cream. Believe it or not, not a lot of publications are willing to take on the subject of Lightspitting, so word of mouth is all we got. Oh, and "Krash" clever and original, really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 January 2006.

Believe it or not but I believe it easily... Schutz 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G is unsupportive of small town culture and a communist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.251.28 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2006.

• Delete per nom, sockpuppet show. --Malthusian (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable/original research/non-notable. WP:NFT. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 12:02Z
• Delete per Quarl. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• "Original reasarch". You are the biggest nerds ever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs).
• Delete... and you misspelled "evar". Melchoir 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Quarl. Stifle 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That little warning up there is cute, but the first personal attack was made by "Uncle G" so maybe you should scrutinize yourselves first. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that's not a personal attack at all, it's merely his opinion that this does indeed fall under Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just cos a handful of people do this does not make it notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it, indeed, fall under that? Crazy how you know since I have no fucking idea who you are. Dick. And don't put that "unsigned" bullshit under this. My name is Tim Valenta and I'm from the South Side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs).

I hope that happens automatically and you wikipedia nerds aren't just antagonizing me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 January 2006.

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.