Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwahahahaha

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to evil laugh (already done) and delete the redirect. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mwahahahaha

This does not seem terribly noteworthy nor needed. EvilPhoenix talk 08:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Qualified delete. If feasible, pertinent info should be merged with laughter. knoodelhed 08:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete all of the information. Merging sounds like a good idea though. Maybe a redirect, or would that be innapropriate? Seeaxid 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment You do have to make up your mind for the vote to count. Otherwise, it's just a comment like this one. -Harmil 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd count it as a keep re use of the delete button. Then neutral on merge or redirect. Kim Bruning 10:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How is this not notable? It's a huge part of Western culture for villains to have stereotypically villianous laughter! Certainly more people are familiar with this subject than vast numbers of articles about science, histroy, fancruft, or railroads. It's at least as notable as Ho ho ho. However, The article might be renamed to something better.-LtNOWIS 10:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to move per Morwen. Evil laugh is a better article name. We probably don't need each spelling as a redirect, but I don't think they'd hurt. Also, this article is only 7 hours old. It'll almost certainly grow with time.-LtNOWIS 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How is Mwahahahaha different from Mwahahaha or Mwahaha? It is just someones laugh... there is nothing inherently notable about that. JamesBurns 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The difference between those two doesn't enter into it. Morwen's proposal is to have the article at evil laugh, and a redirect from this spelling. Uncle G 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Evil laugh (which I made a redirect to it - and has one oncoming link). Morwen - Talk 10:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Morwen on move. Chances of anyone hitting the exact spelling for the current article is slim, too. Grutness...wha? 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per knoodelhed ... wow, what's happening to me today? I'm turning into a mergist! -Harmil 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too many ways to spell it, this is a bad name. I don't think this will ever be more than a dicdef. If there's useful information here, it could be merged into laughter. Friday 13:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to evil laugh or gloating laugh, or merge into laughter. There! My vote is cast! Mwahahahaha! -- Karada 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless we want Mwahahaha, Mwahaha, Mwahahahahahaha and others all to redirect to evil laugh. Radiant_>|< 14:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that evil laugh is currently a redirect to this article, and not a full article in its own right. As I read your comment, you appear to to be happy for the article to be at evil laugh, albeit that you think that the redirects are not worthwhile. Is my inference correct? Uncle G 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 19:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant!. Dcarrano 19:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. especially for the likes of onomonopeias. --jonasaurus 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Oliver Keenan 21:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for being part of Slashdot subculture if nothing else. But there are loads of ways to spell it. I prefer Bwahahah. Mwahahaha! Robinh 21:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to evil laugh or laughter. Btw, the correct spelling is "Muwahaha", because I said so. Hermione1980 23:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that evil laugh is currently a redirect to this article. Are you agreeing with the move to evil laugh? Uncle G 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, um, yes. Sorry about my stupidity. Yes, move to evil laugh. Hermione1980 13:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Both wrong, it's "Muahaha". -- BD2412 ^talk 02:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant! (and if someone could warn this user why this page got deleted, she's known for creating these kind of pages). --InShaneee 02:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who you refer to, but the creator has four edits. [1] Radiant_>|< 08:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge or something, just get rid of it, it seems way too stupid to be an article in an encylopedia, so how about a rename instead --172.174.173.175 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Morwen's idea is a good one. I've refactored the article to go along with the proposal. Move to evil laugh over the redirect. Delete or keep the redirect left behind according to taste. Uncle G 14:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As with Radiant!'s note that the evil laugh expression (mwhahaha, etc) has many variations, as long as we mention some variation of it in the article readers should be able to find it through the search function, thus the proposal to delete the remains appeals to me. However I'm not so sure as to legitimacy of the title Evil laugh. Seeaxid 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to evil genius. Possibly together with "Fools! I'll destroy them all!" and the like. --Kizor ~
• Keep or move somewhere.  Grue  18:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete You either know what it means or you don't. You don't need an encylcopedia for it. -asx- 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if anything I'd spell it Mwahahaha, followed by Bwahahaha (for jubilant laughter), but I think everyone's different. Bad precedent. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • What about spelling it evil laugh, as proposed above? Uncle G 17:38:20, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry, that's what I meant, I meant to move it to evil laugh as proposed, but delete all the redirects, as they're silly. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and all the redirects. The article is amusing, but profoundly unenyclopedic (how is it "megalomaniacal"?). -Splash 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• I WILL DELETE YOU MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA r3m0t ^talk 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC) :)
• Move to Evil laugh and keep.-gadfium 23:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Luke, I am your deleter... muhahahahahaaaaa... seriously though, the page name is shocking. As I just demonstrated, there is no "right" way to spell the opening or define the number of "ha"s, so we'd need hundreds of redirects, not to mention "NO! spell it this way!!!" page-move wars. Gah. Garrett^Talk 02:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Move to evil laugh as (variously) above. Garrett^Talk 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How about spelling it evil laugh, as proposed above? Uncle G 10:02:44, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
    • Oh, right. :) Garrett^Talk 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash. --Kbdank71 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Evil laugh, as per several people above. DES 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Evil laugh. (evil laugh) Alphax ^τεχ 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Why do you need to delete it anyway?? Its not offencive, or is the servers running out of room? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.4.208 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-27 07:22:13 UTC.
• As the only one here qualified to judge an evil laugh, I rule Move to Evil laugh!!! Mwahahaha... --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.