Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate eye patch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 REDIRECTED to Eyepatch. — JIP | Talk 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a vanity/joke entry for a non-notable term. The first version of the article said first concieved in Paris France in 2005 by two unnamed brits. Thue | talk 22:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense / neologism / no significant currency / typically pointless and uninteresting student prank. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont delete The article has now been updated to show that this term is broadly used on the south coast and west of england and is not nonsense. If the wikipedia has such articles as the donkey punch then i dont see why pirate eye patch cannot be included as well.
- Unsigned comment by User:E mpika
- Delete. Vanity neologism. If this term were broadly used, it would show up at least once on a Google search. A search for "pirate eye patch" yields several pages of Halloween accessories, but nothing in any way related to sex. Compare this to the massive results for "donkey punch". Bhumiya/Talk 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just redirected it to pirate. much less fuss than deletion. Though if you still want to delete it, count this as a delete. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is no mention of eye patches at pirate I think the redirect does not serve any purpose and should be deleted. Thue | talk 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actiually, on second look there is a mention, a link to Eyepatch. That is a better redirect. Thue | talk 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There's no reason for this page to exist. Bhumiya/Talk 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is no mention of eye patches at pirate I think the redirect does not serve any purpose and should be deleted. Thue | talk 17:48, 10 November 2005 (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.