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 speedy close, bored now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN website, not even in the top 4 on Alexa plus major COI, all editors to this page frequent the website CTJF83 chat 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. If any old Pokemon can have a page why can't this? Rehevkor ✉ 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Mostly unencyclopedic, but does have a notable employee. ;) American Eagle (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear conflict of interest from authors. Alexius08 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just about some stupid fork of Nupedia. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace. Self-references do not belong in article space. Reach Out to the Truth 04:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per nom CTJF83 chat 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST POSSIBLE NEUTRAL I HAVE NO STRONG FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT WHATSOEVER!!!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hearty Chuckle ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- not an encyclopedia article. Kenrick Talk 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MediaWiki, this is only an application of a notable product. :) 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wikipedia. Clearly a better place for it. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 06:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates NSR, inherently impossible to maintain a NPOV, and is really just a target for vandals and an overbearing pop culture section disguised under the banner of "cultural significance". Perhaps I could overlook some of these problems if we had flagged revisions installed, but we just can't seem to get our act together as a community to even make that happen. Delete *.* JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Furthermore, there are thousands of ((unreferenced)) tags all over the place, indicating that reliable sources might never be found. --Pgallert (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.