Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer prank (3rd nomination)

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 JForget 01:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prank

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

Deleted after a previous AFD, but recreated with different information. I repeat part of the nomination rationale from the previous AFD: "Completely unsourced (and therefore most likely non-notable) and unencyclopedic article. It would probably need a complete rewrite to even become remotely encyclopedic." Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, due to some odd coding issues, I purposely moved the page to "Computer Prank" and created the AFD as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Prank" and moved it to this title. Closing admin, please delete redirects as necessary if consensus is for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced original research. No hope of an encyclopedic article here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research (with a hint of prankishness of its own. "...cause the user to urinate on himself/herself"? Come on!)==MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, unreferenced, and not much different than a regular prank. The article as it stands is a concept salad. --Sigma 7 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 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.