Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular Era

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: Speedy deleted per user request, CSD G7 Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Era

• Delete. Beat me to it. Totally POV and nothing that can't be handled by
  Common era. Daniel Case 18:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Anyting there can be handled by
  Common era. Dananderson 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as POV-pushing original research. Ohnoitsjamie 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as made up nonsense being used to vandalise pages.Gator (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism, personal essay, original research which is currently
  our verifiability policy puts the burden of proof for verifiability on the contributor. Will change vote if, prior to close of AfD discussion, good, convincing, well-sourced evidence is presented that this is a real term in real use which has been reasonably widely adopted. No relevant hits in Google Books, i.e. none of them show SE for "secular era" being used for dates. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't Care. Calm down, folks. I knew this was going to be deleted, I just wrote it because it's called humor. Common Era is just as ridiculous as "Secular Era" if you think about it, and if you all had your way you likely would make this "secular era" a reality, or at least, create another time era that isn't based on Jesus. Did you even read this section of the article?

Obviously, it's all humor. Please, folks, laugh a little. Cheers, Darwiner111 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

HAHA....now delete it.

(Unsigned remark above by Gator1. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Darwiner, "obvious humor" does not make an article a candidate for speedy deletion, so as things stand we need to keep the article up for a week and let this discussion to proceed to a conclusion. If you were to request that it be deleted I would stretch a point and delete it (CSD G7, though strictly speaking that's only for accidentally created articles). You can make the request here, or you can implicitly make the request by editing the article to remove everything AFTER the line that says "End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point" (you'll only see this line when you edit the page). If you think other people will enjoy the humor, you could copy it to your own user page (the one that says "Darwin rules") first. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Next time, try the Uncyclopedia [1] when attempting to be funny, rather than wasting others' time with vandalism reverts. Ohnoitsjamie 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok ok ok folks calm down, delete it already. I'm not a life-or-death Wikipedia defender like the rest of you, so just delete the damn thing and go on with your lives. Darwiner111 20:27, 10 January 2006 (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.