Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking giddy up

Fucking giddy up

Minor fad that appears to be limited to one community, judging by the relatively large amount of editors to the article, I suspect the article has been posted on said message board for improvement by the posters. -Obli (Talk)^? 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree and the links to the messageboard indicate it's filled with people who don't know how to use photoshop or be funny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.149.39 (talk • contribs)
  • You're right, most of the photoshops in that thing are badly made or not funny at all. bigexplosions 10:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Total garbage. Brian G. Crawford 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Watch the fad grow. I wouldn't delete it, because Cornelius will come back to haunt you again. Remember the [O Rly? owl?[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.132.242 (talk • contribs)
• Worst. Fad. Ever. I spend plenty of time in the Newgrounds BBS and I can confirm that "Cornelius mania" can be described as trivial at best, propagated mainly by preteens with little in the way of photoshop skills or humor. Cornelius is a stain upon the Newgrounds community and the internet in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.38.146 (talk • contribs)
• Too cool for the interweb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.4.194 (talk • contribs)
• As creator of the article I was hoping to expand this fad but realise I couldn't and so very glad that the "bedn fad" that's been going on for at least dreadful two years on the Newgrounds forums hasn't progressed elsewhere and has become mandatory for every single photoshop thread on the Newgrounds BBS. I'm fairly neutral with whatever decision is made whether to keep or delete this article. I tend to wonder how fads such as the "o rly" fad became an internet phenomenon when itself became quite tedious. However I do not make the choice whether this article should stay or go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfscr (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The o rly, AWB, and the damn Chuck Norris fads were let on, so why shouldn't Cornelius stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.223.198.113 (talk • contribs) .
  • Because the article isn't actually about the meme. It's a load of bollocks. If the meme gets any bigger then it should be filed under 'Cornellious' and actually contain information about the known origins of the image and aspects of the meme, but right now it's the wrong topic for an article, and the wrong article for the topic. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Markusdragon 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --blue520 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Confined to one internet community only. Non-notable. --Doug (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)