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, bizarre relisting discounted.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THUDD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A spoof of THX from 1 episode of Tiny Toon Adventures. No links. No Refs. No notability. Blargh29 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You've got to be freaking kidding me. A parody from just one ep of TTA? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was going to say Merge but I don't think it's notable even within the context of Tiny Toon Adventures; I certainly don't know where you'd put it on that page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It was a 10-second joke! Yet, judging from the lack of edits (the majority by correction and grammar bots) and that it was created by an IP during the early era of the site four years ago I'm just going to say this was a test article that has done a great job eluding AfD until now. Nate • (chatter) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a joke book. This is a leftover from those early days when they were taking any random thought that popped into someone's head. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seriously, an article about something that lasted 10s that isn't the men's 100m sprint in an athletics tournament? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mind you, it's got to win an award for the longest time that an article has had a tag on it - it was tagged as being an orphaned article way back in November 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one-off joke, no secondary coverage that would indicate notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep for the lulz. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability asserted. Aiken ♫ 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Okay, then I suggest cleanup and promotion to featured, and nomination of 69.137.188.39 to adminship for his four stellar contributions (and no history of problems). • Anakin ^(talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I predict that 69.137.188.39 will soon be an administrator. You convinced an administrator to relist this for further debate, simply by saying "Keep for the lulz". Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not an admin. That was a user relist. I left a message asking why. -moritheil^Talk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was just a joke, seeing as he nominated it for deletion in the first place. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since he did it, we have to be clear, so I've asked him. -moritheil^Talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what's worse, that someone thinks we'd get a laugh out of that, or that a non-administrator can post the relist message in the first place. So, if we've gone seven days and I don't like the way the discussion is going, I can just extend the time? To try that, I'd have to have some big ones, and they'd have to be gold plated. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why has this been relisted? There are surely enough comments here. Aiken ♫ 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blargh29 responded to say he has not actually relisted it. He has not offered further explanation. -moritheil^Talk 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Better tell him to change his password. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is difficult to know where to start. No references, not even an assertion of notability. As for the relisting it seems redundant since the consensus appears to be clear enough, although it still has not had a full seven days yet. As a side note, blargh29 does not appear to be an admin. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if need be, merge one sentence into the Tiny Toons main article mentioning it. -moritheil^Talk 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If the scope if really only that small and someone wants to argue keep for humor, even then I'd say it should be kicked per general consensus on 1-shot pop culture eventsy qualifying as notability. Only stuff that snowballs like crazy can get through that... like this classic and the AfD here[1] ♪ DaTheisen(talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (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.