Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purity test
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 was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purity test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable concept, however popular it might have been on Usenet. Over three years and no suitable references. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added some references to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stupid, but if Ann Landers and newspaper newswriters reported on it then it's notable. I took out the criticism section as OR but it really should have some sourced mention of the obvious silliness of the whole thing. Borock (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - stupid stuff abounds at Wikipedia, and we decided long ago that even junk (or is that junque?) should be here. This article meets WP:GNG by being well-sourced and describing why it is notable. This is a well-documented meme or factoid that existed even before the Internet, but has continued unabated. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 15 December 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.