Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Words/Closed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents


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 Delete --Allen3 talk 12:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De-perimeterisation

Not so much an article as a jargon-filled mission statement, along with some distinct POVing. Possibly too much of a neologism to transwiki (?), so it either this needs a massive clean-up or deleting. About 1000 google hits with or without hyphen. Grutness...wha? 08:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a neologism / jargon. Tobycat 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:57:26, 2005-08-07 (UTC).
  • Delete. Rd232 11:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC) As a newbie, I will admit that my initial attempt to create a wikipage that describes this new information security concept, had an excessive number of shortcomings. I am trying to understand the expectations of Wiki, and have started to edit based on the learnings I have achieved. I am working to achieve the "massive cleanup" and would welcome pointers amd feedback. What I can say in defence of not deleting the word is that having come to the Wikipedia to better understand and define the concept I was surprised to find it missing. Thus my ham-fisted attempt at adding it. I had never done so and thus the short comings. I am reading the MANY and various pointer pages. help or coaching would be welcome Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally could someone help me understand how not to be accused of POVing? I am trying to ensure that the page is written neutrally. Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 21:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beathoven

Self-promotional, vanity..NN content. See WP:NOT EdwinHJ | Talk 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


You shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that everything like this is vanity. I have stripped the page down and improved the spelling & grammar, and it seems more acceptable now. Whether this is a relivant page at all is open to debate though.. Perhaps it should be moved to Wiktionary. When the Wiktionary is complete, it will certainly include popular culture words, even obscure ones, such as this. | Gubby 1:16, 7 August 2005

  • Delete, promotion, and the logic of the article also escapes me. feydey 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xaa 23:52, 6 August 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.

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 REDIRECT to Towel. -Splash 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drycloth

I'm not clear whether this is a synonym of Towel or something else, but surely it doesn't merit a separate article. Deb 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Towel. --MicroFeet 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to towel sounds harmless. I've never heard the term before, though. Flowerparty talk 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    If you follow the link to Washcloth, there are in fact several similar pages. I'm going to redirect them. Flowerparty talk 22:40, 6 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 12:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamstick

Delete, self-proclaimed neologism.FreplySpang (talk) 14:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are websites for this. Wikipedia is not one of them. Mistercow 18:32, 6 August 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.

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 delete. – malathion talk 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denailing

Violates WP:NOR. Lacks references. Sounds like an essay. Probably violates WP:NPOV. Could possibly be merged into Torture. Alphax τεχ 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it existed in medieval times, it didn't go by that name. I'm not even going to go into style. Mistercow 18:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "courtesy of the delicious quality of agony perceptible by fingertips" Oh come on. Some people read about this for educational purposes, this guy sounds like he enjoys it a little too much. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.124.85.164 22:45, 6 August 2005 UTC)
  • Delete There is an almost pornographic quality to the piece, which is inappropriate, not to mention unsettling.
  • Delete The style of the article is inappropriate and there is little to no indication of factual accuracy. "... questioner felt "cheated" that more delicious agony could have been extracted" This is an encyclopedia, not a comic book. - Shadowe 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't like how it sounds? Then we clean it up, we don't delete it. Wikipedia contains many articles on various methods of torture, getting rid of just this one (and leaving the rest) doesn't make sense. People have definitely had their nails ripped out as a form of torture, it's fact and not fiction. Clean it up, don't censor! Commking, 11 August 2005
    • I don't think this is an issue of censorship. The problem is that we cannot verify that any torture has gone by that name. Have people had their nails ripped out as a form of torture? Most likely, yes. But do a google search for "denail" or "denailing". For "denail", you'll find a bunch of people who can't spell "denial". For "denailing" you'll find sites where people are trying to remove nails from lumber. Now let's narrow down our "denailing" search by adding the word "torture". Two results. Maybe there is a kind of torture called "denailing" and only two people have ever decided to mention them in a web page. But with no sources referenced in the article and no Google results, we aren't going to be able to clean this page up. Mistercow 08:20, 11 August 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.

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 delete. --malathion talk 05:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chief'd

Delete. I don't know what this wants to be, but it sure isn't a Wikipedia article. And no self-respecting academics would write an article like that: so I reckon it's a bunch of bored student. -Splash 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete What the heck is this supposed to represent? Its certainly not an article about anything. Hamster Sandwich 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like some kind of college student posse. Gazpacho 04:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent nonsense perhaps? Mistercow 06:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent nonsense.→Encephalon | T | C 06:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiki already has a philosophy and mission! UniReb 07:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed, Mistercow and Encephalon. shouldn't this have been speedied as "patent nonsense"?
  • Delete - Wikipedia has been chief'd !!
  • Delete - I suspect some bored young men are being tricky, but we have taught a trick wiser than them.
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.

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 delete. --malathion talk 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CartooNOVEL

neologism. DS 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete - deleteGOOFINESS is a term coined by me after seeing that article - DavidWBrooks 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

PRPoet has not only deleted the VfD notice, but blanked this page, twice.DS 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE TO PRpoet: DO NOT BLANK THE VfD NOTICE. THE PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THIS PAGE, NOT DELETE THE PAGE ENTIRELY - FURTHERMORE, DELETING THE PAGE ENTIRELY WON'T WORK, SINCE YOU'RE NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR. STATE YOUR CASE HERE, AND WE'LL VOTE ON IT. IF YOU BLANK THIS PAGE AGAIN, I WILL REPORT YOU ON THE VANDALISM-IN-PROGRESS PAGE, AND YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS. DS 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just rv'ed again - they'd once again deleted the VFD notice. Tonywalton 00:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - apart from anything else this'd be a neologism, as stated in the article.

Note that there's also a "Cartoonovel" page (as opposed to CartooNOVEL) with identical (pre-VfD) content. I've replaced it with a redirect to CartooNOVEL to avoid having to keep up with two lots of rv'ing when they remove the VfD notice (hopefully they won't rv the redirect page). If the "Cartoonovel" page is also reverted I'll VfD that as well. Tonywalton 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. Admins should take note of actions of the users in this case and take appropriate action if neccessary
  • Delete neologism and advert. - Motor 07:48:05, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Reeks of self-promotion. Owen× TALK 13:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — NN/self-promition. — RJH 15:04, 8 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wundle

Neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:42, 5 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 15:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barse

'cos it's bollocks --Doc (?) 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

now see the Vfd on Gibbering Kate --Doc (?) 15:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a load of arse. Googling for barse along with the "two words to rude to include here" generates 88 hits. And I just don't believe the 95 mentions in that film claim. -Splash 00:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (preferably speedily). Nonsense. Flowerparty talk 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. There was no "2005 remake" of Finding Neverland, just for one thing... Ken 01:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a crapfest to me. -- BD2412 talk 01:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now i feel such a ribbage duck. the shame, the shame... Hamster Sandwich 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Apparently, even though I am English I haven't heard of 2nd most popular insult in England! This is a hoax. JeremyA (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • On checking with my sources, I am informed that it can also refer to that part of ones anatomy between one's " — " and one's " — ". Which is handy to know, but woefully unverifiable! -Splash 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • so its like a "choda"? Hamster Sandwich 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently so. And, to my horror, Taint is a bluelink, and I come to wonder if we should redirect to perineum. -Splash 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Looks like someone's trying to put Roger Mellie's Profanisaurus (from Viz onto WP. All those terms come from there. Tonywalton 11:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Barse is already listed in the "Perineum section" of the body parts slang article. Nice. Hamster Sandwich 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I saw the movie (actually 2004 and not a remake). Sorry, no barse there. Leonard 02:44 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like a load of barse to me. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. MicahMN | Talk 23:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Secretlondon 15:30, 13 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blondphilia

Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism. Wikibofh 03:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete <drini ☎> 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. --jonasaurus 21:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The proper Greek would be xanthophilia (ξανθοφιλία). It's actually the name of a disease where you see yellow; Vincent van Gogh reportedly had it. --Jpbrenna 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fake word EdwinHJ | Talk 22:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Avalon Bound 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Valhallia 11:55, 11 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ediot

neologism descriptive of the article creator. DS 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest moving to Wiktionary. There were about 5500 Google hits, but it's a neologism for sure. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete (or speedy as I think this is actually an attack page). Not to be confused with Ren Höek's "eeeediot". Brighterorange 22:07, 5 August 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.

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 MERGE to List of Mississippi county name etymologies. Done. (FunkyChicken's vote is invalid, but also implies a merge.) -Splash 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mississippi Counties Names Etymologies

Delete Useless list, information repeated in the individual county entries. Frühstücksdienst 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with List of counties in Mississippi, that article could use some extra info CanadianCaesar 00:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooh, wait, there's a category full of these- [1]. Abstain CanadianCaesar 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect with/to List of Mississippi county name etymologies. This will be my last vote, promise. Should have done my research. CanadianCaesar 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to "List of Mississipi counties (etymology of names) -- basically, I don't like the title grammar, but article can stand. DavidH 01:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Canadiancaesar --BaronLarf 01:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note Every single entry is repeated in the context of the individual county articles. Frühstücksdienst 03:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge into the various county articles, if the info is not there add it! FunkyChicken! 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, wikipedia has to pay for bandwidth, no point making users load 500 pages instead of just 1. Kappa 12:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Kappa. MicahMN | Talk 15:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect: Duplicative of existing List of Mississippi county name etymologies, which is part of a larger series, all 50 of which are titled List of [U.S. state] county name etymologies. jengod 08:07, August 9, 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life-threatening

Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 4 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 15:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanneman

Delete. Inaccurate, uninformative and unencyclopedic. --Ian Pitchford 14:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No value. Egil 15:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 17:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree. Punkmorten 17:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If we had more than one Hanneman in Wikipedia, I'd proffer a rewrite as a name disambiguation page. But at the moment we only have the one. Redirect to Jeff Hanneman until more articles on people/places/things commonly known as "Hanneman" exist and require disambiguation. Uncle G 17:48:16, 2005-08-04 (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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 22:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danger

Dicdef. FP <talk><edits> 17:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, encycopedic topic, hopefully will be expanded to explain different ways people perceive and react to danger. Kappa 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa. UkPaolo 18:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring improvement in the next 5 days. This is just a dicdef at present.--Scimitar parley 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring expansion. At present, this is little more than a dicdef. -Soltak 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Unless expanded per above, delete. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps redirect to Fight-or-flight response? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded well beyond a dicdef. As we have no real articles for hazard or peril I can't see a good redirect either. -R. fiend 19:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. --Carnildo 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. If expanded, it would be most likely to become a 'how to', a FAQ or original research about some current event. There may exist an article in the future for this, but here is not where to start. -Splash 01:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef or redirect to Fart lighting. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Nandesuka 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable topic, (neq 'VfD 'cleanup).  Grue  19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable danger. Klonimus 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. --Jondel 07:23, 9 August 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.

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 keep and merge; the page already has a merge template. Eugene van der Pijll 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faggoth

Neologism used by very few people. If the only link for information about the word is a "source for rants, raves" then I'm not impressed. Jackliddle 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into black metal (as I originally proposed). I'm not familiar with the context, but it seems to be a term that people actually use. However, I don't think it warrants its own article. - ulayiti (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure neologism. I'm not even sure if it deserves a one-sentence mention in black metal. Punkmorten 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with the non-merger Jackliddle 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. There appears to be valid information here, but Google thinks it is just as likely to be a username as a (insulting) musical categorization. Plus, now I can categorize my Cradle of Filth. Eldereft 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Either keep or merge/redirect. (Note: I am the person who wrote the article.) Googling the term will reveal that it is in use (albeit infrequently, and often disapproved of). Therefore, I believe that it is useful to have a description of what it is. SpectrumDT 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirecting "faggoth" to black metal is just wrong. Besides, it is a neologism, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place to explain it. But I see your reasoning. Punkmorten 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Please explain why "just wrong". SpectrumDT 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Presumably because Faggoth isn't Black Metal and a redirect would be misleading Jackliddle 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but faggoth is used in BM context to describe borderline bands. (Note that faggoth is only "supposedly" distinct from BM.) SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Your note there says it all. Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Overall, someone please enlighten me: According to what Wikipedia rule is this article to be merged, rather than continue on its own? SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Presumably the lack of notability for an own article. However, no hard feelings, but I stand by my delete vote, since it's an obscure, vague neologism. This is the second Google hit, consider that. Very few people in the BM scene actually use the term. A search on Norway's largest metal forum gives zero hits (consider Norway's importance to this genre). Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I understand the reasoning behind wanting to delete, but the whole merge deal seems illogical to me. It doesn't seem to fit in very well under BM, so to me it looks better to let it stand on its own. SpectrumDT 01:46, 7 August 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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lego-Prosthesis

Very close to patent nonsense, but perhaps not quite there yet. Tupsharru 21:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not seem to be verifiable. I have found some references to working models of human hands made out of Lego, but no indication that they are seriously considered as prosthesis. ManoaChild 23:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but BJADON the talk page "These facts are facts about actual facts." Robert A West 23:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, there is no such thing as a prosthesis made out of legos and certainly Vietnam Vets aren't getting ones that say "What are you looking at? Wanna fight?" Xaa 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying to think of a reason this can be speedied, as it's downright stupid to keep stuff like this for 5 days, but alas, I fear we must. Delete. -R. fiend 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and before anyone votes to BJAODN this, please keep in mind that at least one admin does not count such votes as deletes, so if even 25% of the votes are BJAODN, the article could fail to meet consensus and be kept. -R. fiend 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's nowhere near funny. -Splash 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a veteran of both Franco-Prussian wars, who relies on his Lego knees, I encourage this page's continuation. -FranzJoseph 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (Vote actually by 68.48.216.25 (talk • contribs))
  • Keep. It's a keeper. BJADON!!! (Unsigned vote by 207.237.204.113 (talk • contribs), first edit)
  • Keep.First off how would someone from the University of Bristol even know what funny is? I vote we speedily delete Senior Splahes Vote For Deletion. Plese see article---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splash%27s_Vote_for_Deletion_on_the_Article_Lego-Prosthesis (Unsigned vote by 151.201.136.93 (talk • contribs))
  • BAJDON this except for the Lego hand bit at the end which appears legitimate so Merge that with the main Lego article. 23skidoo 04:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You understand that such a move will result in keeping this article as a redirect, per the rules of the GFDL? Also, if you plan to vote BJAODN, we have recently learnt that it is necessary to be explicit and indicate whether you mean "keep and copy to BJAODN" or "delete and copy to BJAODN". -Splash 04:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete and immediately not really funny. The fact that someone involved has been deleting votes on this page and adding anonymous votes pretty much proves that it isn't legitimate. should have a wikipedia page Don't Feed the Trolls. delete quick.--Darkfred 14:37, 5 August 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.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heck/old

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 keep. This doesn't preclude redirect, but there isn't a consensus to redirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heck

  • Delete nonsense. Should be deleted or redirected to Hell. Revolución 21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hell -Soltak 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual material about a valid topic. Tverbeek 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A word that little children and stuffy housewives say to avoid the word Hell is not a valid topic. A portion of the material is completely false and the rest of it has no encyclopedic value. Should we have articles for gosh and son of a buck? -Soltak 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tverbeck, notable euphemism and imaginary place. Kappa 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hell. I can think up of another way kids say hell: h, e, double-hockey sticks. Others could go on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand - it is in the noosphere. I would like to see some of those 'ironic religious philosophers', though, and mayber a little history. Eldereft 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Minced oath, where other cleaned-up profanities are.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to minced oath. Secretlondon 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to minced oath. Punkmorten 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Minced oath. Nandesuka 17:02, 5 August 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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lock, stock and barrel

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copied to Wiktionary and transwikied the only link. I don't feel that a redirect is indicated. Robert A West 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I "created" the article by migrating the relevant text from the flintlock article because as a phrase (as opposed to a mere word) it would get more exposure categorized as an English phrase. If this is migrated to the Wikitionary then I can envison quite a few other phrases going there as well, no?--Hooperbloob 02:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not like this would be the first article to do so. Other articles can always external link to the wictionary page. Transwiki. — RJH 15:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With no disrespect to your effort, I feel that the proper place for this, and nearly all other English phrases, is Wiktionary, per WP:NOT. Hence, I went to the effort to do everything that I am allowed to do boldly, for all three phrases in flintlock and then came here. Robert A West 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't care one way or the other. I suggest that we put a cautionary note on the Category:English phrases then to ensure that it doesn't grow with improper entries. Perhaps a VfD on that category will get a good discussion going. --Hooperbloob 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean CfD, I assume. A fiew of the articles look good, but most need to be merged/transwikied. Sigh!
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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Going off half-cocked

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I already copied the text to Wiktionary and transwikied the sole link. I do not think redirect serves any purpose here. Robert A West 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • *thumbs up* In a few words: Dicdef, transwiki, speedy delete once it's moved. ;) --FreelanceWizard 23:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We could redirect this to List of idioms in the English language instead. Nandesuka 17:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Same for "Lock, stock and barrel," I assume? Robert A West 03:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not really an idiom If you know what half-cock is, then the phrase reduces to a garden-variety metaphor. It is only mysterious because the term refers to an obsolete technology. Robert A West 21:43, 8 August 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.

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 redirect to List of idioms in the English language. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flash in the pan

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have copied the useful text to Wiktionary and have replaced the only link to this article with an inter-wiki link. I don't think that a redirect would be useful here, but if the vote is to keep, I will change the page to one. Robert A West 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Flintlock. Kappa 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet, but I see potential for an article here. You know, I always thought the origin of the phrase was from panning for gold. -R. fiend 02:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what Wiktionary is for. Robert A West 16:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but WP does have some things sort of like this, if they are extended well beyond a dicdef (I'm not sure this would be, but it isn't impossible). But I like Nandesuka's suggestion below. Redirect per Nan. -R. fiend 17:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki — Sorry, I'm not seeing the potential. Can this article ever be something other than a definition and perhaps some examples? — RJH 15:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of idioms in the English language. I'll make sure this is added there. I think a redirect to flintlock would in this context be nonsensical. Nandesuka 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...aside from my personal dislike of lists of this sort, is "Flash in the pan" really an idiom? Robert A West 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll answer my own question: No, it is not an idiom. If you know what a flash is and what a pan is, the metaphor is clear and the meaning plain. Robert A West 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I know what a flash is and what a pan is (I cook stuff in a pan every day), but the meaning isn't clear to me. Even in the context of a flintlock, the connotation of "insignificance" is unclear -- a flash can just as well be the mark of a genuine explosion. Therefore, I think it's fair to call this an idiom. -- Visviva 13:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Nandesuka. -- Visviva 13:52, 11 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 14:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roflpopper

Neologism with exactly 1 Google hit. Do not Transwiki, instead just delete. -- Visviva 08:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedic.-gadfium 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless neologism. Punkmorten 16:54, 4 August 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.

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 delete. There are a load of votes from anonymous users and entirely new users, some whose first edit is to this very VFD debate. Although such votes are not automatically discounted, I suspect that this is an attack of sockpuppetry, thererfore in this case these votes have been discounted without mercy. What is left is a clear consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaafirphobia

Non-notable neologism that gets 3 google hits from the same blog. Any relevant information about views toward Kafirs should be in the Kafir article, not here.Heraclius 15:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that this article was made in opposition to Islamophobia, which is also a neologism. There is a huge difference between the two, however. Islamophobia has been defined by a number of respected authors (both pro and anti-Muslim) such as Said, Safi, Esposito, Ye'or, Robert Spencer, and Ibn Warraq.
  • Delete indeed the entry acknowledges it's a neologism. <drini ☎> 15:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious neologism -Soltak 16:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 16:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I feel Heraclius definition of respected authors is vague because Dr Colin Chee could be considered a respected author too. Also, what is wrong with this neologism? Is it not accurately mentioning that a Muslim can hate a non-Muslim? Garywbush 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Vote made by anon IP) A viable description of the ugly face that racism can take. 22:48, 4 August 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Revolución 23:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (*User has less than ten edits). Useful new word Bmcgin 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment [Author:TCross, 09:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)] This word is obviously NewSpeak (George Orwell, "1984"). The purpose of Newspeak according to Orwell: Compress a thought down to a few syllables so that the mind glosses over and accepts the embedded concept without careful consideration. In this case, the inventor of the word is attempting to implant the idea in the public mind that some Muslims hate non-Muslims, and that hatred is a kind of hatred similar to Islamophobia. Certainly the author of the article may state that idea anywhere and everywhere he likes as often and as loud as he wishes. But the Western world has known about Muslims for a thousand years, and we should ask two questions 1) How have we got along until today without a word like this? 2) Now that we are making war on the Muslims, why do we suddenly discover a need for this word? Here is my answer to these questions: In this entry is the authors define the word as a form of racism that is not between races.
  • Keep (Vote made by Anon ip). It seems to me that this is a useful word to define the concept of hatred which is clearly visible in the behaviours of extremists within the islamic faith. The existence of this page here does not imply that all Muslims hate non-muslims, but the existence of this word is useful when needing to refer to those who do hate non-muslims and it is good to be clear that this is about a sub-section of the faith, not all members of the faith. Muslim organisations in the UK condemn the actions of those who we could now say are "suffering from Kaafirphobia". Does the definition state that all muslims hate non-muslims? I do not think so. If we are clear about the definition I see no reason for deletion. 86.133.173.24 06:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Might I be right in coining a neologism for "hatred of non-Christians by Christians"? Because if this article is kept, that is EXACTLY what I'll do. Revolución 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Revolución, yes please go ahead and create your own neologism for "hatred of non-Christians by Christians" because we already have neologisms like Christianophobia, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, and Kaafirphobia in Wikipedia. You have my support. Here in Malaysia, Kaafirphobia is a word commonly used in colloquial speech as all non-Muslims, irrespective of religion are commonly lumped together as one category, Kaafirs by Muslims. Sam@mysite.com.my 08:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Vote made by anon IP). (Its a useful word that is the reverse of Islamophobia and is used in regular speech here in Malaysia, where there are two categories of people, first is the Muslims, and second is the non-Muslims who are treated as inferiors, irrespective of their religion) 219.95.180.120 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (User has less than 50 edits). I support its inclusion in Wikipedia as this word has prior use, which can be proven through a search at Google and also on various other blogs, such as Minishorts . Also, it accurately describes hatred of non-Muslims by radical Islamists who are usually condemned by moderate Muslims. Rajanr imposter 07:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, various blogs? you stated just one and even that, the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section.__earth 12:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I cannot speak for Rajanr [since renamed "Rajanr imposter"] but are not entries in Wikipedia based on common use? Even the terms such as Islamophobia and Christianophobia were developed by common use. So, I do not see anything wrong with the poster who said the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section of a blog for this is how a word gets created. Sam@mysite.com.my 02:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kafir and make a subsection of Kaafirphobia there. The term has no widespread use and a google search gives merely 3 results - 2 from a blog and 1 from wikipedia itself __earth 12:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me add that your claim that a google search gives only 3 results is inaccurate for you searched Google Web only and not Google Groups, which gives an additional 1 result. And if we take this third web site, minishorts.net it also has the word kaafirphobia in it except it is not displayed in Google Web or Google Groups. So, I believe this article should be retained as there are 4 known usages but there are surely other usages on local Malaysian e-communities not connected to the Internet. This term was invented by a Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. What is your opinion, Earth? Sam@mysite.com.my 16:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (I vote to keep this neologism as a search on Google, both Groups and Web render 4 results, and a search on minishorts.net render 3 results. I am sure there are other web sites that use this term, which was originated from Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. There is justification for this neologism as Wikipedia has allowed Christianophobia and Islamophobia. Christianophobia itself is not used frequently at all yet it is in the Wikipedia data base. So, Kaafirphobia has the right to be in the data base too as it is mainly intended to be used by sociologists for hatred against non-Muslims by radical Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda that justifies Kaafir inferiority and Muslim supremacy, which is a form of racism.) DanianCheong 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per earth's suggestion. Not notable enough to merit its own article, but is a term in use in limited circles, and so deserves a mention in kaafir. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - A search on various web sites gives 12 results, i.e. Google(5), minishorts.net(3) and rajanr.com(4) so it is quite notable to merit its own article. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia is for already used terms and not original research. Since Kaafirphobia has been used already, it merits mention in kaafir as well as having its own article kaafirphobia. Sam@mysite.com.my 04:16, 12 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 22:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slog

neologism and dicdef. Delete.Ken

  • "Neologism" isn't a reason to delete. Kappa 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Neologisms are considered a form of Original Research -Satori 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Hamster Sandwich 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One part neologism, one part copyvio dicdef. --Carnildo 23:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologisms are a classic valid reason to delete pages. Nandesuka 16:52, 5 August 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.

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 keep. Unusually for a discussion involving so many anons, all who voted passed my personal criterion for suffrage by having a reasonably long editing history suggesting an identifiable personality and commitment to Wikipedia. Three editors wanted deletion, two merge and one keep. There being no consensus, the decision mandated by policy is keep. This does not preclude a merge or redirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krishnology

Delete. This article was previously listed in vfd as Krishnaology, it was discussed, and deleted, mainly because it was agreed to be a neology with little use. The article has reappeared under this new spelling. The same arguments for its deletion still apply. The term under both spellings produce a total of 76 google hits. Many or most of these hits are derived from the previous article, and from links and insertions of the term into wikipedia by anonymous logins. These additions seem to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to validate the term in wider usage. I listed the article in Speedy deletions yesterday, and the notice was then speedily removed by 66.68.156.175, one of the anonymous logins that has created the entire content in the past few days. Explanations for the removal of the deletion notice were posted on the article talk page, and on my talk page. I'm not convinced. Imc 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


Keep! The present article is not the same content as the vfd article discussed above. This article is about theological infomation, scholarship, new developments, and it is also evolving. There are 5 theological reason for keeping this article.

  • The only term used to discuss theology on the Hindu deity Krishna is Krishnology. It has been used to discuss the theological positions of Vaishnava denominations such as Radhavallabha and Gaudiya Vaishnava.
  • Although the term Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology, it is also too broad of a term. Krishnology, as an aspect of Vaishnava Theology, is a more specified term and is not aplicable to discussions on the role of other Vaishnava avatara such as Rama, Kalki, Budha, etc.
  • The most important aspect of this distinguishment is discussed in the article; "An important outcome of Beck and Gosvami's work is that they have demonstrated how Krishnology is intradenominational by engaging both Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology and Radhavallabha Theology."
  • Just as Christology is a universal term within Christian Theology, and Momonism is specific to a form of Christianity; Vaishnavism is a universal term within Vaishnava Theology, and Krishnology is specific to certain forms of Vaishnavism.
  • Specialized terms exist to clarify communications. The term Krishnology is a useful term in clarifying the specifics of Vaishnava Theology, as has been shown by recent scholarship.

August 4, 2005 (Usigned vote by 198.214.51.1)


  • SPEEDY DELETE if it's indeed the same content which has already gone through vfd and deleted, then it falls under criteria A4 in WP:CSD and therefore it can be speedied. <drini ☎> 18:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you tag it for speedy delete, it gets recreated, use {{deleteagain}} template. And if the user removes it, then a case for vandalism can be started. <drini ☎> 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article and all the stubs it links to seems to me to be an attempt to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use at this time. The only serious ISKON scholar who has consistently used the term "Krishnology" in reference to Vaishnava Theology is the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, who used the term only to reference his specific points vis-a-vis his theological dissertations as a sort of 'shorthand' instead of having to constantly write "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology" over and over again in his Doctoral Thesis, which he did not complete before his death on 15 March 2002. The entire article and all the stubs that were created to link to it are attempting to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use. Comment: Note, however, that ISKCON is undergoing a period of transformation at the present time, and as the works of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami are reviewed and the works of Dr. Guy Beck become more generally accepted, this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars - at that point, it should be included in Wikipedia. It just isn't in common acceptance right now, and this article (and the stubs it points to) seems to me to be an attempt to push this neologism into common acceptance outside the community of ISKCON scholars. Xaa 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge. I agree with the above in that "this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars." In contributing to this article I found the 2 most important concepts specific to the term Krishnology have been; "As a term, Krishnology differentiates itself from other Vaishnava theologies by centering its discourse on the Krishna avatar of Vishnu and distinguishes itself from other Vaishnava theologies centered on Vishnu avatara other than Krishna" and that it "is an academic neo-logism for Krishna Theology." These are two very valuable concepts specific to the term Krishnology!
  • As the comments above note; Goswavi used the term Krishnaology to stand for "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology." Given the value of the two concepts specific to Krishnology listed above; this article should be merged under more appopriate titles such as; Vaishnavism, Vaishnava Theology, or Krishna Theology, so that these valuable concepts will not be left out. I would suggest Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology, but then Guy Beck's work would be excluded.

August 4, 2005 (66.68.156.175)


  • Comment. If Merge becomes the decision, then the ONLY appropriate place would be under Vaishnava Theology. As stated above, Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology. The other links listed above are inappropriate! August 4, 2005 198.214.51.1


  • Comment. Or, if Merge is decided upon, then another appropriate area to merge the above infomation would be under ISKCON in general. August 9, 2005 198.214.51.1
  • Comment It has to be merged with ISKCON, because outside of Iskcon, the term is not in vogue.--Profvk 22:05, 12 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supti

This is just a definition of a name, and so doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Unsigned nomination was by user:57.66.51.165 at 23:00, 2 August 2005. The Literate Engineer 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete <drini ☎> 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - concur w/ above. If we had someone famous by that name the information could be included, though.Eldereft 17:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sanskrit Dic-def Hamster Sandwich 17:56, 3 August 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.

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 KEEP. This is a near-unanimous "not delete", but there is an even (or nearly even split) over whether it should be merged. Thus it is kept.-Splash 19:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xenogears terms

Fancruft. Some of it is obvious, and all of it would be better on a fansite or Xenogears wikibook or something. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's in Google, saddos. can't you even check for yourselves anymore? 212.101.64.4 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's in Google, saddos. can't you even check for yourselves anymore? 212.101.64.4 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is claiming that this stuff was made up by the authors, just that it's not encyclopedic. The fact that you can find this info with Google isn't relevant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Per nomination. A lot of stuff links to this page, though. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know how notable this article is so not sure of whether it should be deleted or not. If not then it should at least be rewritten with an introduction to the article. --Sleepyhead81 11:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mergere with Xenogears or whatever. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Xenogears. Either that or send it to a wikibook. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--Mitsukai 16:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As it appears that this page is the result of a lot of other merges, I'm going to vote weak keep. Feels like having a "Schools of X County" article as a compromise. ESkog 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep to "List of Xenogears terms" or Merge with Xenogears. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It should probably be moved to List of Xenogears terms like Y0u said. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Keep: Merging with Xenogears would bloat the article. Moving it to "List of Xenogears terms" as others have suggested sounds like a good idea too. Someone42 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Merge into Xenogears or Delete as fancruft. Nandesuka 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 13:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to "List of Xenogears Terms." If we go around deleting every so-called "fancruft" page, it will take a long time. There are detailed lists on the characters, factions, and so on. This page provides a list of all the "other" terms. Its information could be added to other articles, but it may be wise to keep this as a place where other pages describing these terms can link to, so that excess description isn't needed.Deckiller 13:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Xenogears. JamesBurns 04:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is fancruft. Eclipsed 09:48, 8 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joder

A[n] rambling extended, multi-lingual dictionary definition. brenneman(t)(c) 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Offence unintended, poor word choice. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This article does seem to be discussing the word as much as defining it, so it's more than just a dicdef. Still I'm unsure if Wikipedia is the place for this sort of thing. Abstain for now. Will watch this one. Agentsoo 13:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC) The article presents facts about lenition and clear cut examples of usage, and I may come back to add quotations if I can find them. Such will not be feasible on the fuck article, as that is already large and broad that a quotation/in depth explanation from a random word attached to the end of the article would look very contrasting to the rest of the article. Instead of redirecting, I added a "see also" link for the curious reader wanting to have a broader perspective. The entire purpose for my writing the article was to make the Spanish profane term less vague. I, therefore, believe that this article can stand on its own. However, I respect 195.194.4.65's opinion. I also wrote the article on Chingar in collaboration with Hajor, and it has expanded quite rapidly. I see no reason why this article could not do the same. D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Response to Aaron Brenneman: I believe the article has more than a simple dictionary definition, which has been stated by both the previous editor and I. I don't believe that brash statement belongs on top of the page anyway, as it will probably bias other users' opinions becuase it looks as if it is a summary of the article. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
New idea: Create a redirect as User:195.194.4.65 suggested, and merge extra info from Joder to the Chingar article. D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. If we're going to do this for the Spanish word for "fuck" why not every other verb in every other language? Bad idea. -R. fiend 15:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete. --BradBeattie 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per R. fiend Hamster Sandwich 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign lang dicdef of a word we already have an article on in English. Do not redirect or merge.. -Splash 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 04:48, 7 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gapers

Article consisting of 1 line. Unencyclopedic topic. Dr Gangrene 15:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a personal attack on skiiers. Yeah. --Several Times 16:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Also a dic-def. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Thue | talk 18:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the dicdef. Punkmorten 19:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unexpandable one-sentence-fragment dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 23:42, August 3, 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.

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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ilfirin

Hoax? Move to wikitionary? -- BMIComp (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm restarting this vote from today, August 3, because the template wasn't linked in correctly, preventing many people from voting. Checking those who have voted, most of them seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia and I think we need more votes especially from more experienced editors. No vote from me. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to wikitionary. Grpunkim 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no evidence that it carries any meaning outside of Tolkien's works. All non-Tolkien usages are related to fantasy-gaming or fanfic. Perhaps add it to Wiktionary as a protologism, but I'm not even inclined to do that. I find no precedence for including the words of a fictional constructed language (as opposed to an auxiliary language) in the Wiktionary--Bayyoc 20:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The link from the Vfd page to this page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tolkien minutiae is non-notable, "rare form of homo sapien" [sic] is hoax or unverifiable. Dcarrano 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a fairly through reader of Tolkien, I do not recall this term, and don't think it was used in his works, pending a citation. Even if it was, it was certainly not a promenient term in his mythology, and does not have the notability of, for example "Valar". The other meaning looks like a hoax, or at best some sort of neologism. DES (talk) 20:48, 3 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gufler

I did a quick google search, and this seems to be a disambiguation page between 3 non-notable persons? Thue | talk 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Anton Gufler was a German settler in Kansas in 1857, according to Eudora,_Kansas#History. Nn even at that time. Punkmorten 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Three redlinks about non-notables. They individually get
  • Speedy Delete — Reinyday
  • Speedy delete seems to be an experiment that will not go anywhere --Mddake 02:49, 7 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frontpage turd

Non-notable: Google returns zero hits for this phrase. Loganberry (Talk) 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is a commonly used term in fora; if you can think of a better name for the article, please feel free to rename it, but I object to a perfectly legitimate article being deleted because it doesn't return on google define. Neither, you may note, does Tomie, and that article hasn't been requested for deletion. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia of everything, and even if Google hasn't heard of a frontpage turd, that doesn't mean actual people haven't.

Goodgerster 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it that's a Keep vote, or at least not a Delete? It'd be useful if you provided some evidence that it was "a commonly used term in fora", though, since I didn't only use Google Define, either: there are no hits returned either on the main Google search [2] or (relevant to your argument) on Google Groups [3]. Putting a space in it (ie "Front page turd") produces precisely one hit. [4] I can't see how it's anything but non-notable. Loganberry (Talk) 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is a Keep vote. I haven't time nor patience to trawl through dozens of forums and development websites looking for this phrase.. It should be enough proof of the concept's existence that I can define 'frontpage turd' in this much detail. Google is not the whole Internet. Goodgerster 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some evidence for the common existence of a phrase which is almost completely unknown to Google, seeing as no sources are cited in the article itself. You're quite right to say that Google is not the whole Internet, but as a very important search engine neither is its silence irrelevant, and Google hits are often used here as a rule of thumb for notablity or otherwise. If the consensus here is Keep then the article will stay and of course I'll accept that entirely. The fact I've nominated the article certainly doesn't mean I think you're making the whole thing up, since I don't: simply that I'm unconvinced it's notable enough for Wikipedia. (That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.) Anyway, if you wish the last word you can have it: I'm going to shut up now and let others decide. Loganberry (Talk) 23:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Goodgerster an authoritative and plausible writing style is no substitute for verifiability. If we can't verify it and you do not have "time nor patience" to help us, you should not be surprised if we delete the article. I do have the time and patience to do some quick due-diligence reality checking. You ought to have the time and patience to cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. No evidence provided of significant real use. It is the responsibility of the contributor to provide this evidence if it isn't patently obvious. One other data point: a Google search for "frontpage" limited to webpagesthatsuck, Vince Flander's excellent website on the topic, produces only two hits on frontpage. Flanders is hardly sympathetic to FrontPage, calls it "AffrontPage," and says "Microsoft doesn't use FrontPage to create pages on Microsoft.com -- even the pages discussing FrontPage. If Microsoft doesn't use it, why should you?" The title of his website shows that he is not averse to using coarse language. But there is no reference to such a thing as a "Frontpage turd." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Never heard it used, no evidence that anyone uses it. seglea 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to lack a documented history. Andre (talk) 23:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism and POV rant. --Icelight 23:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unstable neologism. - Thatdog 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. If someone can provide a reference - i.e. a print article or notable blog reference, then that could switch to a weak keep.
  • Keep If this term is not notable, it should be! although I've never heard the term, it describes a genunine phenomenon and is precisely explained. In other words, web sites built with FrontPage tend to share the undesirable characterists the author describes. From a web design perspective, it's a useful point of reference, a kind of class of bad web sites. Ankles 09:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new phrases, neologisms, or concepts, no matter how worthy they may be. That's the meaning of the prohibition of original research. We should not have an article on Vince Flanders' phrase "AfFront Page," either. We have articles on things that are already established concepts, not things that ought to be established concepts. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sterotypical neologism. I use Frontpage, and I don't think you'll find any spelling or grammatical mistakes here.--MilesProwler 01:11, 8 August 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.

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 MERGE to HVAC -Splash 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air handler

dicdef. DS 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, encyclopedic topic, likely link/search term. Kappa 23:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ventilation or HVAC, possibly merging in this definition somewhere. --FreelanceWizard 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge into HVAC since that is more focused on the area this covers. Vegaswikian 06:57, 4 August 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.

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 keep this article, merge inheritance (object-oriented programming) into it. I will add the merge tags, and let somebody else finish the job. I'm cleaning out debates right now, and don't have the time or will to do the merge myself. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance (computer science)

I've put this on VfD, because this article doesn't really add anything on top of inheritance (object-oriented programming), inheritance (genetic algorithm) and inheritance (disambiguation). --R.Koot 22:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I found this page (It was the only entry there) through Google using "define: is-a". If I was to do a Google search for "is-a Java" (45,600,000 results and none on the first page were relevant) I would have never found out what this term meant (I needed to find out for my Java Programming class).
    • (Unsigned voted by User:202.14.216.129, his/her 7th contribution.) This would be be solved Mgm's solution, a redirect to the current [[Inheritance (object-oriented programming). --R.Koot 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 3 August 2005 : I found this page when searching for "is a" which is a very important term in object-oriented programming and actually means "inheritance"
    • (Unsigned voted by User:132.199.171.145, his/her first contribution.) This would be be solved Mgm's solution, a redirect to the current [[Inheritance (object-oriented programming). --R.Koot 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Usefull. Delete or move After carefully read the article for the second time I agreee with the R.Koot. Existing article is poor and should be deleted or reditect to the [Inheritance (object-oriented programming) --Oldadamml 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it contains information on several somewhat unrelated topics. Maybe move the existing inheritance (object-oriented programming), here, as (computer science) seems a lot more common than (object-oriented programming). (Note I am a new Wikipedian) --mkehrt 19:28, 8 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swerd

Delete Just some kid trying to take credit for a neologism. Necropenguin 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, can't these punks tell the difference between Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary? >:( --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. Maybe we'll force him to look that up. Wikipedia IS educational! Hamster Sandwich 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, uninformative article on neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 23:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Punkmorten 11:18, 5 August 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.

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 deleted - There's an overwhelming consensus to delete when rampant sock/meatpuppetry is ignored. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcest

Neoligism that is neither notable nor encyclopedic. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell what's going on here. It looks like The Bob Talbot started the VfD, but Thirty3, who created the Webcest article, created the VfD subpage without the template and then blanked it. I am trying to remedy things and get the VfD properly set up, since I do think this article deserves a VfD. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (Amended 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC))

This was the first VFD I'd ever been involved it, so I wasn't trying anything malicious with the VFD page - I put my vote for keep up and then removed it because I wanted to see what kinds of comments would be put on the page before commiting to that vote. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I don't think most of the no-user comments are from sock puppets, though they obviously aren't from people who care a lot about the wikipedia's process. Thirty3 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's something that's out there, is not going away and should be known to exist! 16:52, 4 April 2006 (GMT)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Extremely useful word that can be used to describe certain aspects of the internet without having to explain too much; the definition should be clarified, but other than that a handy phrase. HooTuckEye 20:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful new word. Describes social implications of the internet, and social interaction not possible before the existence of the net.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Has an essential and unique function. While it is not yet notable it will, undoubtably become the greatest word ever invented
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Best new word of our time Karmicthreat 21:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Perhaps could use a bit of cleaning up, but is certainly a worthwhile page to have up.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- This term is worth having around. It's got huge usage potential, I just think that its actual definition will need to be clarified a bit. Once that's happened, there's no reason not to keep it. AnthonyRichardson
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Any term's power lies in its potential utility. This is a "High-concept" Neologism, and as it does not duplicate or usurp another, more acceptable term with the same definition, I'm for keeping it.DocStout
Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- Its a great word written by a great man.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- Cmon, just dont look at it if you don't like it.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Keep it on the site, because it is awsome.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- It is educational, and fun. Think of the children!
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- It's sexy!
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - a term created on the 2nd of august (yesterday) can not possibly be of sufficent notaritety to warrant an encyclopedia article. Usrnme h8er 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism --malathion talk 09:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef, neologism, crystal ball - wide range of reasons to delete this. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Madd3Max 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delēre, neologism. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, crystal ball, neologism. Sliggy 13:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This should have been gone shortly after it came up.--Mitsukai 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 18:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons above. If webcest.com or webcest.org is ever established in the geek psyche I might change my opinion. Carl T 21:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Don't delete it. Webcest has staying power. I can see it becoming the next blog of neologisms. SenorFred 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Camw 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have amended teh paragraph at the top, removing my vote from this VfD. I am not impartial wrt this article, and am abstaining from the vote. --DavidConrad 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Also, sorry for not putting up an explanation! I had intended to but I was doing about five things at once and somehow got distracted. I just remembered the whole deal today and checked on it.The Bob Talbot 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would agree that it is a neologism, yet, I think that the basic concept, a sexual practice made possblie by the internet, is a an identifiable conecpt that should have a term. the label would be helpful in discussions. This is English, after all, essentailly a chimera of neologisms words stolen form other languages. The influx of technology, and the resultant new methods of interaction are rapidly increasing the speed at which a neologism is accepted. Blogging, podcasting, Googling, Etc. Gearyster 16:33, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)
Comment: This vote is the user's second edit. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This is true. However, I think my point is still valid, for what it's worth. Gearyster 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wiktionary - I created the page becaose I didn't get to the part aboot neolgisms being inappropriate. Personally, I feel that if a neologism is extremely onstable, the page will change all the time and the chorn will make it an obvioos candidate for deletion, otherwise why not gamble with a coople of k of disk space? I think that a lot of words are created and no one knows how or by whom, I wanted to track the history of a word being created. Thirty3 17:58, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)
  • Keep - I'm already osing this word. 207.193.69.153
Vote by non-user -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. claviola (talk to me) 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think you should have to work a little harder than this to get your new word into an encyclopaedia. sneakums 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Enough of wikipedia is nonsense already. fuzzie 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - A needed word in today's society! Inanechild 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Perahps you didn't catch that Jeffrey Rowland coined this. On what planet is that not enough? reznite 19:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I used it today when my uncle was talking dirty to my sister on the internet. If it's usable and applicable to everyday life, and it doesn't get in anybody's way, why not keep it?
  • Delete - This VFD is not about Jeffrey Rowland or his web comics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BenKimball 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Wiktionary - This doesn't seem like a term unworthy of being defined, but as Webcest is not yet a cultural phenomenon, I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia article.
    This is not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, obviously fails the google test, not encyclopedic, etc. JZ 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Might as well, since it will only be used more and more often. Flying Hamster 00:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, proposed by a fairly prominent web personality. RMG 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it's pretty awesome; also sweet. Jonathan Rosenberg 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are plenty of neologisms on this site already, deleting this one just because certain people don't like it is rather foolish, and the term does have its place within a fairly wide audience. Krinberry 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This entry is not really misleading in any way; it is not as if it is incorrect. Webcest seems like an interesting linguistic experiment. I for one would like to keep around to see what happens. Besides, who is it going to hurt to keep it? 6:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wiktionary - Same reasons above, doesn't belong here without cultural relevance. MMZzach 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP while the word may be new, the concept it describes is not, and has been noted and remarked upon before. --Tosei 11:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, We've been looking for a term for the obvious, and as this grows there will be only more content. Perhaps a brief introduction?
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 11:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is such a widely practiced hobby in today's culture that its begging for a term to be made for it.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, If you don't keep this, you are lame.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense neologism.--nixie 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete i like Jeff as much as the next man, but this needs to get soem prominence before it can be accepted. You can't get prominence via Wikipedia. -vee
  • 'keep(provisional), keep this, but this article must be improved. an article containing nothing but examples is not up to par. improve content and add additional media citations. further info on the history of the term might be gathered (who had a hand in creating the word and the context of the creation). i reserve the right to to change my vote if i decide that webcest is not yet ready for wikipedia. -- I'll own my words, don't strike me out!! btw everyone who voted delete should have another look at the page in question. it's filling in nicely. the rewrite by Tosei is quite good. my provisional keep is not so provisonal.. as to my being a new user.. i do not dispute this but i'm a long time user of wikipedia, and now that i'm here, i'm here to stay... hit me on my discussion page if you have any questions or comments. --Michaelcoyote 10:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User's second edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- It's all in good fun.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


  • KEEP I do most of the things described as meeting the requirements for webcestuous behavior on a daily basis. It's about time i knew what i was up to.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, C'mon, guys. Don't be taking this so seriously. Wikipedia is here for informational purposes and provides information as well as the next.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The practice is far too popular to not have a proper name, and Webcest is as good as any.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a term for unsavory cyber-sex related actions is necessary
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe this word shall benefit all those at a loss for words when recently unnameable e-deviancies are commited. Fearbeer 21:50, August 6th, (GMT -08:00)
Comment: This user's only two edits are to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This word has already entered my vocabulary, and is posed to be a phenomenon.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. there are way too many sockpuppets/new users/unsigned votes in this VfD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - supported by jillions of new users/sockpuppets and the closing admin should take note of this. I've taken the liberty of striking through all anon votes as meatpuppetry run rampant. FCYTravis 08:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-admitted neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete note the sockpuppetry, people!Borisblue 08:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's already been mentioned in casual conversation within earshot of me twice since the 2nd. -- evilskull 01:57, 8 August 2005 (EST)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Use is expanding already. Wikipedia ought to be on top of these things as they happen; if we have to wait until it appears in the Queen's speech before something emerges we might as well use paper encyclopedias instead. Marijne
  • Keep not every new word spreads so fast but this one has, and in doing so demonstrated how valid it is JCS 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no word that is not neoligism, except maybe Fun-tastic, which was in wide use even when the mighty stegosaurs towered over fearful tiny mammals in the sun. deleting this entry is stymying change and progress, the combination of forces that is responsible for a crazy newfangled internet-cyclopedia in the first place. -shirou
Unsignedish vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The necessity of this word is simply staggering. Within the confines of its very definition fall a plethora of calls for e-morality. Without this word, who is to say what can be considered "right" or "wrong" in the inky vastness of the internet? The rampant and widespread shenanigans that can be perpetrated on the internet with virtually no recourse are astounding, this word will bring to this nameless, faceless amalgam of users what they truly need, guilt. People choose to ignore their conscience so long as there are no true repercussions, but this word will bring their conscience back to them. -BarbaricSushi
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Wikipedia is not a tool for spreading a neologism; it is for recording a well-established one, at best. WWC 19:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a useful word, without a doubt. jtgotsjets
User's seventh edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - one of the useful functions of wikipedia is being a kind of pop culture mirror. silentthomas
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Langauge is an ever changing and evolving concept of verbal communication. As such new words with merrit must be kept in some sort of record (hence Wikipedia). As all words were new once, word age cannot be considered a valid reason for discontinuation. Also, considering that the average person's vocabulary is less then 25,000 words (Psycholinguist Dr. Catherine E. Snow - Harvard Gradruate School) and there are more than three times that many 'official' words in the English Langauge (Oxford English Dictionary), one cannot assume common usage as an appropriate moniker for a word. Most importantly though, the word provides an adequate label to "innapropriate internet behavior", something that has yet to be done; therefore, the word has a place in the English Language and a justified exsistence.
Unsigned edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)</wiki>
  • Keep - It's an incredibly valuable addition to the lexicon of english language. It's useful, and has become part of my daily vocabulary. --Thelatespaceboy 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In essence this is not an argument for whether Webcest should be a word or not, that will be decided simply if it cathes on or not. This argument concerns the ability of one to post a usefull and catchy neologism on this site. Therefore the question which is actually being voted on is this: "Is Wikipedia a place where language can evolve, or is it merely another online encyclopedia?" Jake Mercer

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of new ideas. It is supposed to describe the world as it is. You are arguing that we should violate policies on self-promotion, verifiability, and the ever-important No Original Research. Everyone vote to keep is a vote to ignore the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia.
  • Keep
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and put what useful information there is under Overcompensating or Jeffrey Rowland, either of which are just significant enough for articles. Wikipedia is not the place to put invented words -- Urbandictionary.com is. Come back when use of "webcest" is at least as common as "santorum". Silly Dan 21:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place to push for usage of a new word. There're other avenues, and this really is a vanity page, nothing more. While I've enjoyed the comic that originated this term, (and came to this specific page from there), I don't agree with the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a puppet of someone's neologistic agenda. neesha
  • Keep - Language is continually changing and moving forward. deleting this entry because it hasn't reached a national level yet will simply show that everything in the world including the wikipedia likes to halt change. this being a small example, but you get the point. within a couple of years this will be a regular use term and there is no reason to wait till that happens to leave the page up.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - You use the term Neologism like it's a bad thing. As the person above me said, there is no reason to inhibit progress. Allowing this entry to stay isn't going to hurt anyone. If the word takes off, then you will have a good page about a new word. If it doesn't, then in a few months or a year you can remove it. As of right now, it is a new word, so the entry should not be deleted only a few days after it was created. Vince Berry
Appears to not be a real user-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let him have his fun. It's a valid term too, despite it's novelty and recent inception. ElVaquero 16:48, 8 August 2005
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.

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 keep (no consensus). For those interested my vote count shows 9 to delete, 5 to keep which is short of a two-thirds majority anyway. Furthermore, there is agreement that "Jumping the couch" is a neologism, but the keep voters are arguing that this neologism is notable for some reason, and have backed it up with some evidence. Second, there is at least one delete vote which wants part of the article moved to Jumping the shark, this would probably require at least a redirect to be left behind to remain GFDL compliant. I also get the impression that many of the complaints to this article is that it is awfully similar to the more common "Jumping the Shark" phrase. I would like to point out that my closing of this debate as a "keep" does not mean that it's impossible to merge this article with something else if anybody will be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the couch

Seems to me to be not-notable. A google search for 'Jumping the couch' and any of the examples name's gives three hits or less. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. Some of it could be moved to Jumping the shark, as the phrases are so similar that they may be used in many of the same situations. --Several Times 14:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. Hamster Sandwich 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no different than jumping the shark. It also received a front page link on IMDb yesterday. -user:Fallout_boy
  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Jumping the shark" is not a neologism, whereas "jumping the couch" is. Also, the examples used are highly POV. Punkmorten 14:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, the examples are highly POV right now. Sounds like a vote against the content of the article, instead of a vote against the article itself. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we could even get a little more people on this list. It amuses me. -GamblinMonkey 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I hardy think 'it amuses me' is a good reason to keep. Surely this is BJAODN? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Oh, fine. It's non-notable (unless the phrase actually catches on someday) and very opinionated. Despite its humor, it should be done away with. -GamblinMonkey 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move an example or two to Jumping the shark, which already has a sentence to explain the phenomena - "Hein also uses the 'jumping the shark' concept to describe other areas of pop culture, such as music and celebrities, for whom a drastic change was the beginning of the end." --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 05:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it is a neologism, so what? I think we need a bit of everything here. Purple Rose 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was recently featured on imdb.com's daily news [5]. Yes, it is definitely neologism, but I think this term is gaining enough notability (and notoriety) to be kept here. --Deathphoenix 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This particular neologism is getting a fair amount of press coverage, and gets far more hits than indicated above. Seems to indicate "realistic evidence of existence". In time, this phrase may just fizzle out, but it's too early to tell. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete At this point, I can't consider this a term so much as it is a current media joke: it's a pun-- the equivallent of having an article about a quip that Letterman said last night in his monologue. It might catch on as slang but even if it did, this article would only serve as a dictionary definition followed by POV examples. BarkingDoc
  • Keep, and for three reasons.
  1. The assertion that this article's topic is "not notable," especially when that assertion is not backed up with evidence or argument, is no reason to delete this entry. There are many entries in Wikipedia that most people would not consider notable. That gives us no reason to delete those entries, however. Wikipedia aspires to be a collection of all human knowledge, whether that knowledge is notable or not. Indeed, perhaps the more esoteric an entry is, the more useful it is; it serves a purpose that is likely not served elsewhere on the web.
  2. That the article is allegedly POV is absolutely no reason to delete it. If it's POV, then alter it so that it's neutral. Many people believe the entry on President Bush is POV. Does that give us a reason to delete that article, though? An article's non-neutrality is no reason, by itself, to delete the article.
  3. The fact that this entry has been referenced by another website, and a significant one at that, is further proof that this entry is serving a useful purpose. Shouldn't we be doing everything to make sure that Wikipedia is a popular and frequently used reference source? Deleting this article would be doing precisely the opposite.

Hydriotaphia 17:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment on the last post - In reply to your points
      1. The pressure should be on the keep camp to prove notabilty. NOT on the delete camp to prove non-notabilty. Proving notabilty (if notable) should be a lot easier, anyway.
      2. I agree here. POV article should be edited, no deleted. Non-notable articles should be deleted.
      3. I personally wouldn't consider being linked to by one site (even a major one) proof that the article is notable. However, I can understand that others would. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
Reply. Curious. Why should the burden of proof be on the "keep" camp? Because of the open-endedness of the Wikipedia project, it seems to me only natural that the burden of proof for non-notability should be on the "delete" camp. Please explain. Hydriotaphia 06:22, August 11, 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.



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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Econopolitik

Dictionary definition of something which isn't even yet a neologism. Doesn't seem to be in wide use beyond this blog. Angela. 00:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well, it is a neologism... now. -- BD2412 talk 01:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Trife triviality pretends to be intellectual. Please dispose of it. Celcius 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, protoneologistic dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 07:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable band vanity. Oh, sorry, bad habit. Neologism. JDoorjam 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Baleet Illinoisian 03:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A useful neologism, one I might use myself now that I've heard of it, but still a neologism. Caerwine 15:34, 19 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feegit

Neologism/dicdef. Take your pick. Denni☯ 03:12, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • Deleegit per nom. --Alan Au 03:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But Mgm's been selfish and taken all the options. -Splash 02:30, 19 August 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.

Past VFD archived here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blogosphere

  • Keep I'm ignorant and came across this term only recently. I didn't know what it this was 'til i looked it up on wikipedia. So useful to all us trolls out there. --moreanon 20:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep without merging, neologism in wide circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Widely used term. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 17.7 million Google results for blogosphere see [6] and this is a well-referenced explanation of the concept. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least transwiki --Swamp Ig
  • Keep. Past AfD nomination should've given you a hint. --Andylkl (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously notable neologism. I want a button on my keyboard that violently murders people who actually use this word, though. - Randwicked 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a widely used and understood phenomenon. Jtmichcock 12:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Quickly moving beyond neologism. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or transwiki. Depressingly—very depressingly—this neologism is here to stay. Please vigorously fustigate me if you ever catch me using the word non-sarcastically. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely used term, so deletion rationale "Not notable" is wrong. Survived AfD before if I'm not mistaken. Punkmorten 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because a few dozen people participate in mental masturbation on the subject, doesn't mean everyone else has to. --Timecop 01:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep in use in mainstream media. Jessamyn 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, even if this is the stupidest neologism since "metrosexual." Andrew Levine 04:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be an attack on blogosphere entries at Wikipedia. There's also a vfd on the Canadian Blogosphere--Simon.Pole 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quantity is not quality nor notability. 65.34.232.136 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this one, as it describes a notable phenomenon. I would say we should merge all articles on national blogospheres into it (including Canadian blogosphere and Belgian Blogosphere) if they had anything worth merging, but they don't. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable term. --J. Nguyen 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Some might not like the term, but it doesn't change that it's in use and people want to understand it.
  • Delete. Crappy term to denote a series of shit pages of worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since it's a widely used term. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary since the article goes beyond being a simple definition of a word. Angela. 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's places for stuff like this. --Depakote 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Only going to get more important. Carina22 12:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this term is heavily used actualy. --Mateusc 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Blog. Reyk 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep used heavily by news outlets. Jacqui? 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Stirling Newberry 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Blog. There doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a separate article. Slartoff 02:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tend to agree with foo. Rhobite 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep word with widespread mainstream currency and considerable potential for encyclopedic explanation. - squibix 18:33, 19 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Will be transwiki'd. Redwolf24 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stadtteil

Delete: First, this is the English language wikipedia. Second, this is a dictionary definition. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. --Durin 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Apparently this was created to provide an explanation for Category:Stadtteile of Frankfurt and all of the articles therein. In certain cases it can be justified to create a definitional article in order to explain a particular local meaning. However, in this case, I see no reason why the term Stadtteil cannot simply be translated. Thus, delete. Martg76 03:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the category should be renamed to Category:Frankfurt district or Category:Frankfurt quarter then. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the German one. --Durin 14:19, 19 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cockblock

Unencyclopedic neologism. not even for wiktionary -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's already in wiktionary.
  • Delete. Has been deleted twice already. [7] - Thatdog 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
if it has been twice deleted, then it falls under a speedy delete according to criteria in WP:CSD, perhaps protecting from recreate would help too. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Upon further review, the previous deletions were speedy and this has not been through VfD before. Therefore it does not qualify for speedy. My bad. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable activity. Kappa 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Activity (or lack of it) may be notable, especially at the time, but the neologism is a dickdef which is already in Wiktionary. WP:ISNOT Wiktionary. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:42, 19 August 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.

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 Merge to Boy racer. Redwolf24 02:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Boy

Delete: Wiki is not a dictionary, nor is it urban dictionary.com . (Keep an eye out for the slang red links this page has in it, too, in case they come back for those. JDoorjam 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete wikipedia isn't a slang guide. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. (changed voted from delete) merge to boy racer - good spot Liftarn.Alf 16:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into boy racer. // Liftarn 07:14, 19 August 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.

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 Delete. And note that I am from Washington and I've never heard of this. Also I fear this page may be recreated wih this many socks. Redwolf24 03:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coug it

  • "Delete It" Considering how shitty the UDub has played the last few years...up to and including last year's "almost defeated season"...I think this reference is innapropriate. It should be "Muttin' it" or something...especially considering how much talent they waste on such mediocre records. And until this thing gets fixed, I'll delete every thing I can on the "Coug It" page until morons from Seattle stop trying to post their idiocy there. PS: You're welcome!
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JDoorjam 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article reads more than just a definition. If entry is removed, then all the entries in the Slang category should be removed as well. Jamsong 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine by me: please round up any other non-notable slang terms you see and nominate them for deletion. JDoorjam 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See [8]. Initially, your argument was the article was a dictionary term (which it obviously is not), now it's non-notable which is not a reason for deletion. 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they should go away as official policy in WP:NOT states:
Wikipedia is not: A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.
Not that they will go away, anyway-- < drini | ∂drini > 02:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Brock badger. Lullabye Muse 23:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This term is used quite often in the Pacific Northwest and Wikipedia is one of the few free sources of information on the internet where one can research terms such as "Coug It". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.95.76.91 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 August 2005.
  • Delete "Individual articles about each slang term: Out." and "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine." AdroitE 17:06, 18 August 2005 (PST)
    • Vote is user's fourth contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Keep I also agree with Brock badger. duckbutter 18:15, 18 August 2005 (PST)
    • Vote is user's only contribution to Wikipedia to date.
  • Delete nn invented neologism. -Splash 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • First, neologism is not a valid reason for deletion. Second, this is not a neologism, this term has been in use for many years.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 August 2005.
  • Keep This term is used more often than it rains in the Pacific Northwest and its usage has a rich hitory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.5.25 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 August 2005.
  • Move to Wiktionary....and clean it up.
Let's be honest here: much of the objection is apparenty from WSU alumni and supporters who object to seeing the term publicized. This is not a legitimate reason for striking it from Wiki - you can't wish the term out of existence. Having said that, the entry is more appropriate for Wiktionary; references to "coug it" in Wikipedia should be limited to specific mentions in entries pertaining to Pacific Northwest culture, Pac-10 football, the Apple Cup, the Mike Price/Alabama episode, etc.
Equally importantly (and I say this as a Husky who had Cougs in my wedding party) - it needs to be cleaned up and presented less subjectively; the current definition is clever, but its clear anti-Coug slant is a violation of Wiki's neutrality policy (You might say " Always be a good sport - be a good sport all ways").
Cougs, on Wiki you can edit anything you wish. Some Husky went to a lot of work to create the entry's structure, saving you a lot of work. All you have to do is change it. While you're at it you're welcome to edit Husky-related entries to reflect our own scandals: Don James' oversight of the Tyees, the Rick Neuheisel era, Dr. Feelgood, etc. --Daniel Luechtefeld 12:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is this user's sixth contribution to Wikipedia to date, though they have been contributing since June.
  • I agree with Daniel Luechtefeld's suggestions-- move to Wiktionary, clean up the obvious subjective tilt, and remove several examples which really don't match the description (i.e. Ryan Leaf's failed NFL career does not fit the proposed definition). AdroitE 12:46, 19 August 2005 (PST)
  • I've only ever seen this term used with regard to the Cougs. Merge/Redirect a short paragraph to the Washington State University#Spirit & Traditions section. The Wazzu page probably deserves the same fate... — RJH 15:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm Coug alum and love the phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.88.200.30 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 August 2005.
  • Keep it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.50.66 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2005.
  • Keep!!!! -- Phrase is used throughout the northwest by both Cougs and Huskies, as well as by a good portion of the general population without an allegiance to either academic institution 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Beach
    The preceding comment was actually entered by anon 69.167.26.61 (talk • contribs), see [9] and [10]
  • Keep -- The article has room for improvement, but the term is definitely notable. I've actually heard it much more from Washington State fans than Washington fans. Definitely should be cleaned up, but definitely kept. And I say this as a rabid Cougar. --Matt Yeager 00:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Please review the page history carefully. This Vfd appears to have been subject to blanking vandalism in at least one case along with possible or suspected signature modification, notes, and removal of notes other users added to a vote in at least 2 cases. --Mysidia (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have tried where possible to point out who is actually voting in each case. The notes are correct at this moment in time. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could use more of a NPOV on both sides, but it certainly does not deserve deletion. 5:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 192.55.52.1
  • Delete, ignore the sockpuppets, nn term possibly used by Washington State fans, but that doesn't make it even worth moving to Wiktionary. Zoe 09:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The term is elegant in its simplicity....and truth. It is embraced by by both friends and foes alike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.74.134 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 August 2005.
  • Delete This word has been used by many people to define a successfull attempt and moment of triumph. I believe that this entry is an attempt to play a joke on a rival university. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.220.246 (talk • contribs) 20:38, August 20, 2005.
(That was the preceding user's first ever post)
Are you insane? Have you ever BEEN to a WSU game? Do you know any WSU alums or fans? If so, you should know (or ask someone who does) about "Cougin' it". If not, what in the world are you doing voting on this? --Matt Yeager 05:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a foolish example of how Wikipedia is being used to belittle a higher learning institution. Wiki is being a tool for some UW prankster.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.27.47 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 August 2005.
  • KEEP. Stop whining. It should be kept because the term really is significant in terms of pacific northwest culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.18.138 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 August 2005.
  • DeleteChildish dig at another college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.40.109 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 August 2005.
  • Keep Not sure why some think this is insulting especially since the term allegedly originated at WSU and is used by many in the northwest & Pac-10.
  • KEEP IT
  • KEEPThere is nothing wrong with having the term on wikipedia.
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 August 2005.
  • KEEP-It is a much-used phrase in the state of Washington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2005.
  • Keep it: used by the media and sports fans regardless of slant, it's an oft-used term by more than just "the two sides". You cannot ignore a word or phrase simply because you want to believe that it does not exist.
  • KEEP! Used all over the Northwest by Huskies and Cougars.
  • KEEP Someone who heard this term for the first time can come to Wikipedia and learn what Coug it is and its history. This is definitely worthwhile to keep.
  • Keep It: As mentioned above, very popular in the NW and I have heard it referenced last year in other sports (although I cannot remember where) publications.
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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooged it

Soon-to-be orphan of "Coug it," above. JDoorjam 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy delete above. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleet it ;-) — RJH 15:13, 19 August 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.

Deleting that article is overrated.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasticle

Neologism, more-or-less self-admitted: credited to "Jon Scarborough, Stefan Schaefer, and Terry White of St. Petersburg, Florida," who are not otherwise identified. No evidence of real use. Not in American Heritage dictionary. No Google hits on "fantasticle testis", none on "fantasticle scrotum", two on "fantasticle testicle" (one being a reply to another in the same online forum." 509 hits on "fantasticle," but inspection of the first hundred shows that it is being used merely as an frivolous intensification of "fantastic" or a misspelling of "fantastical" (as in Macbeth, "My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical...") Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C
    • I don't think it's a valid CSD. On what criterion could it be speedied? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. Kappa 23:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism; doesn't seem to meet speedy criteria, though. Jaxl | talk 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Prattle. -- BD2412 talk 00:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a load of old 'fantasticles'. Alf 14:30, 19 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hipster PDA

Silly; non-notable Tempshill 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Obvious joke. -- BD2412 talk 00:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be a joke, but "Hipster PDA" gives 31,900 hits on Google. Notable as Internet meme? Punkmorten 21:00, 20 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2.5'

First of all, the article is misnamed. Also, the information has been merged into Hard disk and External hard drive which I believe to be a much better place for it. The article's name doesn't serve as a useful redirect, so I see no reason for it to exist. Aqua 23:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - noticing the policy on merging and deleting... the external hard drive part wasn't a merge in any way, I wrote that before I'd ever heard of this 2.5' article. That was just a coincidence. The article did prompt me to add the part about differnt sizes of hard drives to hard disk, but I already had that knowledge, so I don't think that quite counts as merging. --Aqua 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we can't have an article on each possible measurement of each possible thing in the universe. The article on 2.5" could also say ... insert joke here. Tempshill 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody is going to look for "disk drive" under the title 2.5' (or 2.5", for that matter). The content is easily reproduced, and probably exists elsewhere anyway. ManoaChild 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (just voting so that there a few votes, really). -Splash 03:09, 19 August 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.

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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nymphet

There is no salvagable content on this page that is not already elsewhere. The intro paragraph is "A nymphet is an adolescent young girl", and list of actors in this category is POV. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete : I do not see the point of this article. Is it about "numphets" ? In that case they do not even define what it is properly. This "definition" is followed by rambling and beating about the bush about borderline paedophilia. Manik Raina 08:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ephebophilia. Proto t c 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup -- it's an extremely notable term coined by Vladimir Nabokov in Lolita ...(Edit by User:Ben-w)
    • Should'nt terms be defined in wikictionary ? Manik Raina 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It is indeed a notable term. And it's covered in ephebophilia. Notable terms are defined in Wiktionary, but if there is more information than just a definition of a word, they may well gain articles. Proto t c 11:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup -- Just because there is not a great deal of content there now does not mean people will not add more. I think we should wait before hastily destroying an article. ...(Edit John B)
    • Also the comment about the list of actors being POV - surely if they fit the definition set out then that can't be POV
  • Keep common term, page serves as disambig nicely.  Grue  19:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Clearly an important term, and more content is likely to be added. If we deleted all articles with little content then we would delete all stub articles.(Edit Mark72)
  • Keep and cleanup Perhaps we could change some of the aspects of the article, but we definately should not delete it, and the description of ephebophilia is clearly different and Nymphet is not cobered by that term. -- (Dave)
  • Keep though I always thought it was spelled "Nymphette". --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep We should stop arguing about whether or not to keep this, and start working together to make the article better. Its one of the key words of one of the most important works of literature from the 20th Century.(Sarah) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.210.249.56 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2005.

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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jiangjun

This article was just VfD:ed under the title chiangchun and voted to be moved to this page, though without voters actually paying any attention what the VfD was actually about, which is why I'm resubmitting this again in the hope that people will try to focus on the relevant this time. The previous state of the article made a bogus claim of the word having a meaning separate from the Western concept of general and that there existed a specific knight-like warrior caste in ancient China akin to the Western knights or perhaps samurai, all of it utterly unverifiable. In the previous VfD, there were some very questionable claims that since this word can be used to designate one of the pieces in Xiangqi, Chinese chess, and since it can be used in Chinese similar to a verb meaning "checkmate", it would be enough to grant it a separate article. Verb usage or not, this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted. Peter Isotalo 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki. While the Xiangqi reference moves this beyond pure dicdef, that reference is sufficiently covered by the Xiangqi article itself; no more than a redirect is needed for this part. Scrap that part of the stub and you've got the dicdef. Lomn | Talk 14:50:02, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. As for its usage in Chinese chess, Xiangqi covers more than enough. BorgQueen 00:24, 27 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonymous Society

Delete. original research, website spam --IByte 13:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete o.r./personal essay. Google leads to two websites, the one linked here and another one and I assume the text there was written by the same guy. --Etacar11 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. And that website does indeed appear to be the same guy. He also appears to have created moral economy, Homo stupidus economicus and Socio-Economic Environment which probably also merit further attention. Morwen - Talk 15:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. It admits to not even being a proper Greek derivation. --Habap 17:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please Keep! Technically you are right, of course, but sometimes it is appropriate to bend or even break the rules for a higher cause: if we screw the planet (which we are well on the way to doing) we screw Wikipedia and EVERYTHING else as well. This article and 3 others I created (which are also being considered for deletion) are a very serious attempt on my part to stop that happening. One doesn’t shout or disturb people in a library without good reason – a fire, for example. I have a more sensitive nose for the smell of burning than most people, which is why I’m shouting “fire!” You don’t see the danger (yet) and think that I am just a nutcase making a nuisance of myself. I hope that you will quickly come to realise that I’m not –-Roger Hicks 19 August
It's not a term that anyone but you has ever used. Search the internet. No one is using the term. Heck, not even people who would agree with you use this term. You're entitled to your ideas, whether we agree with them or not, but there is no use in having article that no one will ever search for on Wikipedia. If the term starts to be used by anyone other than yourself, re-post the article at that time. --Habap 14:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism and POV essay -PlainSight 02:59, 22 August 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.

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 Keep/Redirect to Circumcision. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncircumcised

Dicdef, no possibility of expansion. Should be redirect to circumcision Nohat 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Nohat. --Randy 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no redirect --Alan Au 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article refers to use of the term in the New Testament to "refer to unbelievers of either sex, regardless of physical circumcision." Could that be expanded enough to keep? Tree&Leaf
  • keep Tree&Leaf 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect, no need to delete. Trollderella 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, circumcision does not cover the "unbelievers" meaning. Kappa 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but as disambiguation page. Do not redirect. Redirecting to any one article will exclude other possible meanings. Sirkumsize 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to circumcision. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rhobite 03:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rhobite. Vegaswikian 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to circumcision. Proto t c 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to User:Scott Gall :)  Grue  20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rhobite. Nandesuka 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't imagine how a simple disambiguation page could get VFD'd on any topic that wasn't so controversial. Is it that terrible to tell readers alternate uses of the word and ensure they reach their desired location? LizardWizard 04:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to circumcision, if possible move there valuable info too. --Anthony Ivanoff 10:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to circumcision. - Jakew 10:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The religious meaning, which is evidently not the same as physical circumcision in that it can be applied to females or males, should be expanded. Jonathunder 14:54, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
  • Keep.
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.

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 delete. the transwiki vote is more or less a joke vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OS switcher

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 20:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dicdef and neologism. ManoaChild 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • transwiki to my wiki if you please, thanks. Wikinerd 07:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has potential. TastemyHouse 05:13, 22 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 13:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foder

--Delete as per the former Joder article. A foreign "dic-def" D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Portuguese profanity is not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 18 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socio-economic order

Delete. dicdef part of a POV original research series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. Roger, please note our policy which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --IByte 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew pmk 18:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Jaxl | talk 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Osomec 00:17, 18 August 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.

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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenian or Slovene

A page created solely due to an internal dispute concerning the usage of either Slovenian or Slovene (the former is more common) with Eleassar and BT2 being the main protagonists. Non-encyclopedic wiki-internal conflict page. This info can either be covered in about two sentences in just about any article about Slovenians or the Slovenian language. Delete or redirect to Slovenian. Peter Isotalo 17:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk 18:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Karmosin is simply wrong. First, although I contributed heavily to the discussion, the main protagonists of the conflict that participated in edit wars were User:XJamRastafire and User:BT2. Second, while this has been a wiki-internal dispute, the topic has frequently been brought up in non-wiki discussions both online and offline. This can be easily demonstrated by the sheer number of texts written on this question by experts (e.g. Edward Gobetz, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Kent State University and founding director of Slovenian Research Center of America and others) and at the same time this also demonstrates that the topic can be covered in two sentences no more easily than any other. I suggest you seeing these links before voting: [11], [12], [13] etc. Also have a look at Talk:Slovenians. --Eleassar my talk 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no relevant encyclopedic POV involved in any of the links. This information belongs in a Manual of Style or just general Slovene info webpages. The rest is just a lot of meta-debate about clever semantics. It doesn't even count as valid dictionary info because almost no one cares. Like one of the links points out: "Both are acceptable. Neither one is wrong. Consistency is always nice." End of story. / Peter Isotalo 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Maybe this stuff should belong in Wiktionary.  Grue  20:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Slovenian. - ulayiti (talk) 19:46, 22 August 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.

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spaceship Earth

Delete. original research, POV, website spam. Also take note of the Links section --IByte 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the rewrite is currently good enough to keep. --IByte 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalisim, request for speedy deletion Theon 18:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep My original request for speedy delete was carried out last year, page has since become appropriate. the term "spaceship earth" was championed by Buckminster Fuller.Theon 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original content and redirect to an appropriate page, perhaps Gaea hypothesis or Buckminster Fuller. The term has merit but the page has been too crufted to keep in its present form. However, it passes the Google test.Alba 17:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vote to delete this article in its present form as well as the other three entries made by this user on the basis of POV and website spam--Daul21 17:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As it stands now it is OR/POV. I agree the term has merit, though. Start over? --Etacar11 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as long as it's a NPOV version. No matter how important Roger thinks his views are, they don't have a place in the article, unless recognized by relevant authorities. --Etacar11 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original content and create disambig page for Gaia theory (science) and Spaceship Earth (Disney). - Thatdog 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 18:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as suggested by Alba. --Habap 18:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand now that it is not so crufty. --Habap 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup/disambiguate. It does have citations, even if it is POV. Gazpacho 19:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form, it's not exactly new 'original research', an eager editor should be able to turn this into a good little article. --zippedmartin 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with author page or create a page for the book and merge it there. --Vaergoth 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now it has been revised, though it needs further wikifying and expanding. 23skidoo 03:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. -- DS1953 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. I'll add the tags, someone needs to give it a good category or two. Vegaswikian 06:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable phrase. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please Keep!.Technically you are all right, of course: my contribution about the concept of Spaceship Earth is not widely recognised. Thus, your rejection of it as being just the author’s opinion. However, it happens to be true and extremely important. Sometimes it is appropriate to bend or even break the rules for a higher cause: if we screw the planet (which we are well on the way to doing) we screw Wikipedia and everything else as well. I hope that you will allow me to continue contributing to the article. If my passion to save the world is not scientific, objective or academic enough others can perhaps help it to become so –-Roger Hicks 18 Aug.
Roger, as long as none of the POV of the original article re-appears, you are as welcome as everyone else to contribute. Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, any arguments to convince people to do something do not belong in Wikipedia. You are entirely free to post those arguments on your own website and anywhere else that will get people's attention. --Habap 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not. Notable phrase. Sam Vimes 13:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep: the metaphor and phrase are indeed notable, and this article is a beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucky Fuller is astounding, had I known this article was there I might have worked on it myself, keep it and I will. Alf 15:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable phrase that cannot be simply placed in any other singel article. Caerwine 22:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some references and a new example of usage of the phrase by Kenneth E. Boulding. JimR 07:23, 20 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bugsplat

Delete: non-notable neologism --IByte 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete dictionary definition at best. --Wtshymanski 22:36, 16 August 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.

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 No conensus. Redwolf24 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuality

Poorly written, unformatted article on a dicdef topic. -Satori 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --BradBeattie 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Not even a dicdef. ManoaChild 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary, but even a dictionary wouldn't take this.-Splash 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, notable topic in school discipline, military organization, labor relations, and life management. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Once cleaned, and by god it needs more than just the spaces at the start removing, it will, I'll hazard be noting more than a dicdef and WP:NOT a dictionary. -Splash 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid cultral topic, VfD isn't for bad articles on noteworthy subjects. --zippedmartin 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Trollderella 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • VFD can be for bad articles on notable subjects, but I think this can be cleaned up. Let's give it a chance it's barely a day old. If it's cleaned after a considerable amount of time I may vote delete, but not now. It is indeed a valid subject. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, August 17, 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.
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 Redirect. Redwolf24 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavianophile

  • del. Attempt of neologism, 11 google. hits, original research. mikka (t) 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Slavophile -Satori 20:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A redirect would be an endorsement of this strange and illiterate proposal. mikka (t) 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Mikkalai, which means no disrespect to an article's author who made several good contributions for now. --Irpen 22:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - no harm of the redirect, might help some unfortunate russian-speaking soul to find the article abakharev 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • By this logic we may want redirects for unfortunate speakers of all foreign languages. Not to mention their typos and non-unique translitrerations: slavyanophile, slavianofile, slavyanofil, slavjanofil, slavianophil, slawianophyl,..... Redirect articles follow the same common sense rules as regular articles: notability and commonality. 17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Do not see any harm in all tese spellings, just too lazy to do it myself, certainly would not delete if somebody would bother to create them abakharev 11:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Either delete or redirect. --Ghirlandajo 07:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Doesn't harm. --DmitryKo 15:11, 18 August 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 KEEP. -Splash 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthen mound

The picture is very nice, but unnecessary as an article. Anything non-trivial that can be said about earthen mounds should be said in Tell. UnHoly 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deserving of an article as Earthen mound is an actual physical formation. [14] --Randy 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Mound (which is a bad redirect to tumulus, which is a special kind of mound ) and expand. mikka (t) 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move per mikka, Tells do not appear to be identical with these. Kappa 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep though an expert needs to do some nomenclature cleanup here. --zippedmartin 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - could become a nice article. Trollderella 01:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I feel bad now. I must admit that with the work mikkalai and Trollderella did on the article, it is now worth keeping. Good work! UnHoly 18:44, 18 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Branin

Unverifiable Telsa 17:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (My first VfD, be gentle.) Delete as unverifiable. See Talk:Branin for a very long list of queries I had about the article and its sources. It has been two months and not one has been addressed. I can't find the Austrian city mentioned in the article and I remain unconvinced that you can take three languages and four etymologies to come up with multiple spellings and call them variant spellings of the same surname. I spent a morning in the local reference library with some very large dictionaries indeed and was unable to confirm a single assertion of the article except that brenin means king in modern Welsh and that brân means crow. Which is not really a lot. Telsa 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Brennan is a common Irish name, and the text about it relating to the Irish word "braon" is verified elsewhere, but that's about it. The idea that a single name would have Irish and Welsh and Anglo-Saxon roots doesn't make sense, and the name "Branin" I have never encountered. Ben-w 17:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Hello Telsa. I heartily commend your exceptional diligence and patience in researching this, and maintaining an interest in it for 1 month and 17 days. If I understand correctly, Branin is claimed by the article to be a variant of the name Brennan. Various etymological attributions and associations are also claimed. You have researched this and been able to verify just two facts in the whole article. My first instinct was to vote delete, per WP:V, but I wonder if your obvious knowledge of this subject may benefit WP more in another way. Would you be able to write an article on what in your opinion is the correct rendition of the name, perhaps Brennan? You could include all relevant, verifiable etymological and historical details in that article. Then, we might get the Branin page (blanked of everything save the title) to redirect to Brennan. However, if you feel "Branin" is completely unremarkable as a name or version worthy of encyclopedic record (ie., if you think Branin is essentially bogus as a historical name), then we can delete the Branin page. For the purposes of this VfD, I vote delete, unless you specifically confirm that Branin may find use as a legitimate redirect.—Encephalon | ζ  19:36:40, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Telsa's points are well-made. In fact, her queries are for more educated than the article itself, which looks like nonsense to me. Dottore So 20:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite this being my last name, this article is an ill-informed grab bag of words. Lunar Jesters 14:22, 18 August 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.

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 Redirect. Redwolf24 00:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bootay

We already have a page on "Booty" :)

  • I say we keep it. This is BOO-TAY. Not booty.(Preceding unsigned comment by 69.250.247.238.
  • Waste of pixels nomination, should just be a redirect (but can't make it one as VfD has been started). Speedy redirect to booty and close vote. Proto t c 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Proto. Al 15:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Proto.—Encephalon | ζ  17:36:32, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Comment - 69.250.247.238 removed the three comments above. I have restored these. Rob Church Talk | Desk 04:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I sent the anon a warning not to do it again. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep, unless it's standard practice to redirect misspellings. Paul 23:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's common practice to redirect plausible misspellings or variants, yes. Meelar (talk) 16:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Technically it's a slang interpretation, not a misspelling. Like "partay" when it's usually "party".
  • Redirect to booty. It's redundant by itself.Bjones
  • Redirect to booty per me. Seeing as "bootay" is practically a synonym, I don't think we'd miss much redirecting.
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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 (number)

Contains nothing that couldn't be said about ANY other number. Either needs something notable adding about this number (as a number), or a bot to create a couple of thousand other pages... 62.173.111.114 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers want articles on all integers up to and including 256. This number is not particularily interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Every integer up to 256? That's ridiculous. And why 256? Just because it's 2^8? I fear the 257 fans will be most upset. Oh, delete this. 1984 is notable as a year, and as the title of a book, but not in itself as a number. Proto t c 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect anything of interest back to 1000 (number), where this number is mentioned. — RJH 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That'll be easy, since there's nothing of interest there to merge back. Delete, and fix 1984 (disambiguation) to point to 1000 (number) (or unlink). Hv 16:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I vaguely remember a story about Erdos (or was it someone else), who would never describe a number as uninteresting. Given any number he would immediately rattle off some bizarre (and unique) propery of the number. Unfortunately, I have nowhere near the powers of Erdos, and this number is utterly uninteresting, Delete. --stochata 16:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What the article has to relate about 1984 is not written in the Book. Pilatus 16:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not interesting enough. We have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with the sentiments expressed in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite, mentioned above. — Paul August ☎ 16:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete I'm certain that most people who type "1984" are either looking for the book or the year. The Bearded One 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Uncle G. Oleg Alexandrov 17:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikiproject numbers has a pretty good, though not perfect, system, and this doesn't fall into it. I think the idea about no uninteresting numbers is "proved" false because some number would be interesting for being the smallest uninteresting number, making it interesting, and so on up the scale to infinity. Obviously wikipedia is going to cut off consecutive integers at some point and 256, as a power of 2, is as good as any, I guess. -R. fiend 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would vote "keep" for anything up to about 1980, but 1984 is just taking things too far. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing interesting is said about 1984. Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unadulterated silliness. linas 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's all been said above. (1969 (film) should probably be removed from 1000 (number), as well, but that's a separate issue.) -- Arthur Rubin 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not interesting at all and doesn't contain info unique to the number. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. I invited it over for tea and all it wanted to do was watch television and eat Ding Dongs. It's a really boring number. --Kooky | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, who needs to know this obvious information?  Thorpe talk 11:28, 20 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grogger

Neologism, not informative, not funny either GangofOne 06:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. --Howcheng 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Apyule 02:12, 17 August 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Delete. Redwolf24 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dro Itt

Looks like it's just made up. Google yields no relevant results [15] (which seems to have been taken into account in the article). Mysid (talk) 05:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, is not encyclopedic. feydey 12:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Drolitt and annihilate. --Irpen 23:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, unconfirmed. --Etacar11 01:58, 17 August 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Delete. Redwolf24 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trukk not munky and FIRRIB

Nonnotable outside of one forum. Zoe 04:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought it read "trunk monkey." A local auto mall bought a series of these deplorable, prefab TV ads featuring some idiotic thing called a trunk monkey. Open the trunk, out comes a chimp. Makes me want to buy a car there...not. Seen the same ads in other markets. Anyway, delete both as neologisms, nn. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are many forums that utilise this term, many of them are America centric, but are of notation nonetheless.--anon
    • We now go from trunk monkeys to sockpuppets. Next...? - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • WHat relevance do sock puppets have to this conversation?--anon
    • Since you asked...absolutely none.  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both as not notable neologism. A few tips - multiple contributions from very new accounts are sometime received in a hostile manner. However, cited sources that demonstrate notabilty are welcome from any contributor. (And please use ~~~~.) brenneman(t)(c) 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • People use this term all the time. I could find over two hundred if I took the time.
  • "Non-notable outside one forum" is false. These are established terms throughout the whole Transformers fandom. "Non-notable outside one fandom" would be correct. Keep or merge with Transformers (toyline) or Transformers fandom. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How often do we have to have these "but we use them on this board with 1000 users" discussions before we speedy them all?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not used on one forum, and not by 1000 people. It's used on Allspark.com, and Tfans.com, as well as hundreds of others. Both of the two I mentioned have well over 6000 members. comment by 66.73.158.103 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment It was a general comment regarding several similar concepts we've had on VfD for a few days. 12000 users, disregarding cross-registration, still doesn't make it encyclopedic knowledge.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment Both expressions originate on Usenet, on alt.toys.transformers, and predate both Allspark.com and Tfans.com. — JIP | Talk 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with a general Transformers Fandom article. FIRRIB's most notable use was in an actual issue of the Transformers comics. TNM, to the best of my knowledge, was used in an issue of Toyfare, but that's the most acclaim it's ever gotten. I'm only even voting to merge it because it was coined by a friend of mine. (SUP KILBY?) -HX
  • Delete. What junk. Dottore So 19:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing here to keep. -Splash 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the latter to Transformers article; never heard of the former. -Sean Curtin 04:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • It dates back to the introduction of Beast Wars. It is a parody of the initial negative reactions of people who thought that only Generation 1 (the "classic" Transformers, with the cars and the planes and things) were real Transformers, and could not bear the thought of the characters transforming to realistic-looking animals. "Trukk not munky" refers to Hasbro's initial portrayal of Optimus Primal as a reincarnation of Optimus Prime, which does not explain how he changed from a trailer truck to a gorilla. The phrase was often seen on alt.toys.transformers, but always in a parodical context. — JIP | Talk 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • ...Joona? (Seriously, give it up. Neither of these things are really wikipedia worthy. If Hasbro THEMSELVES made a reference to it at a BotCon or such, things might be different, but as it stands, nobody gives a rat's ass about ATT anymore. Not even people in the fanbase. -HX
        • Yes, you've found me. Perhaps you're right about this. I'm changing my vote. Don't keep them. Merge FIRRIB with a more general Transformers article, do what you want with Trukk not munky. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 20 August 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xplkqulkiccasia

Delete: nn cruft. Karmafist 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article admits its a neologism found only in a particular series of novels. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonsense. Alex.tan 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. speedy at that. Dottore So 04:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-admitted novelcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jasper Fforde, or the appropriate book (can't remember which one, or I would have done it myself Lectonar 09:55, 17 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kickass

NN slang term, Wikpedia is not a slang dictionary. Zoe 02:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best, a dic-def. At worst, neologism. --Alan Au 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 03:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the word only requires a simple mention in one of the articles listing slang words and phrases--JRL 08:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I knew this word before reading this article. Www.wikinerds.org 08:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? How many thousands of words do you know that don't deserve articles in an encyclopedia? Zoe 19:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Nandesuka 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - more of a dicdef than Jargon compliance. It even starts with "defined..." - Tεxτurε 17:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - maybe make a wiktionary entry or merge with Kick Ass. Or at least add [[:Template: cleanup]].
  • Delete. Not a dictionary. Alex.tan 03:03, August 17, 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shitastic

Neologism --malathion talk 08:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • CSD not a dictionary, etc. --Apyule 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is meaningless.Leonig Mig 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and no objection to a speedy. It's plainly a joke article, joke articles are Wikipedia:Vandalism and vandalism is removable at speed. -Splash 19:09, 15 August 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.

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 redirect to Douche. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D-bag

Slang dictdef --malathion talk 09:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to douche bag if it is acually a slang term.--nixie 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it has encyclopedic potential. Www.wikinerds.org 09:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per nixie. --Apyule 10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per nixie. feydey 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Proto t c 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this abbreviation into the proper section of douche (douche bag is, itself, a redir). JDoorjam 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to douche to avoid the dreaded double redirect. --Icelight 00:14, August 16, 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon compliance

Wired magazine neologism without encyclopedic potential. Www.wikinerds.org 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, If it was created in the 1990's is not really a neologism, but is a 'logism of some sort. It gets about 75 Googles, so can be ditched as a made-up phrase that didn't catch on. -Splash 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If not neologism, then hopelessly obscure. ManoaChild 21:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - my Latin's not good enough to figure out the type of 'logism :) -Satori 21:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What about cacologism? Although itself a neologism (invented by me right now), I think it's great. (note that it's derived from Greek and not Latin) Punkmorten 20:24, 17 August 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.

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IBM Pollyanna Principle

"Machines should work; people should think." Besides being obscure, this statement uses pointless and facile logic. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. Erwin Walsh 17:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Your disagreement with the article's contents is not a criterion for deletion. Google shows numerous academic studies based on or relating to "Pollyanna Principle." Lomn | Talk 18:34:00, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep. IBM's Pollyanna Principle has been a well-known computer science creed for decades. The "pointless and facile logic" is quite intentional and serves to illustrate some of the misconceptions people make about computing. - Thatdog 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are a lot of things that use 'pointless and facile logic'. That doesn't mean they're unencyclopaedic Tonywalton 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. With a little cleaning, it could be a perfectly good article on the subject. Certainly there is room to be fleshed out, but the term is used. --Icelight 00:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. It should be under 'Polyanna Principle', it is usually quoted as such. I have heard about it frequently but never knew the origin. there should also be a reference to Think (IBM), probably the most famous one word mission statement for a company.--Gorgonzilla 16:46, 16 August 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.

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 djelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fjact

Utterly non-notable term. Gets 67 hits on google, almost all unrelated to this term. gkhan 18:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete MicroFeet 18:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is commonly used in the forum cited. --Cheese Sandwich vote wikified by gkhan
It has to be more notable than just being used in one forum (especially a forum that in itself isn't in wikipedia, which www.reefs.org doesn't appear to be) gkhan 19:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'll defer to the good judgement of the admins, however I'll note that it is a well established forum, in operation for over 4 years, with a relatively large readership (the site overall has 5000+ members). In any case, I'll suggest to the site owners that they catalogue this site in wikipedia (it is a notable resource in the saltwater aquarium hobby, and "The Sump" is the off-topic discussion area). Thanks for your time. --Cheese Sandwich
  • KeepI have seen several words here used in small circles unrelated to wikipedia. And I agree with Cheese...ask any saltwater aquarist about reefs.org and they will know it is an important source of information for a very popular hobby. Thanks, Manny
users only edit gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. gkhan, don't give these guys any more ideas! Sdedeo 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wont happen again :P gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete injoke, the importance of reefs.org has no bearing on anything. Ben-w 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What constitutes enough baring on anything to allow a word to be recorded in the annals of this illustrious internet word bank? Let’s not forget, wikipedia is an internet based phenomenon that allows people to change the meaning of the language with modern speech. This word is internet related in nature, and therefore, it relates to this internet based site. The word is new and not widely used because it is internet forum based. Ask someone what a “blog” is a few years ago and see if they thought the word had any baring on anything. Thanks…I’m done now.
    • A few years ago, when blog was not a notable word, it wouldn't have merited an article. Now it is a notable concept, so it does. Wikipedia is not a means by which to spread your little in-joke made-up word. Come back to us when this is a concept in common currency among people other than your little group of piscine pals. Ben-w 21:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Piscine Pals' - heh heh :). --Cheese Sandwich
    • (BTW, adding 'little', twice, in your description was a nice touch --CS)
  • Speedy Delete not a useful addition at all. PT 19:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Cheese and Manny. Bierboy
users only edits on this page gkhan 19:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Cheese, Manny, and Bierboy. Poptart
users only edit gkhan 20:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless neologism, apparently only used on a single Internet forum. (And even if it were used in any significant way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) Delete. (And votes from accounts which were created just in order to influence a VfD discussion will be disregarded.) - Mike Rosoft 20:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary.' - Sure it is - I had to look up 'injoke', 'neologism', and 'sock-puppet' to understand the comments here. There they were, in Wikipedia. --Cheese Sandwich
  • Delete neologism. Kill the sockpuppets Dunc|☺ 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Djelete this nelogism. Allegrorondo 20:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Djelete' - Ok, that was funny. :) --Cheese Sandwich
      • doing my part to keep spirits up so we can deal with Kukla, Fran, and Ollie around here. :) Allegrorondo 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and thanks to the sock-puppets for making an easy decision easier. --Scimitar parley 20:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, fjact is a word I have heard used before. It usually refers to baseless political spin that is totally contrived and fabricated for the sake of proving a point.
users only edit gkhan 20:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dont let let the delete nazis change the fjact that this would be a great addition to Wikipedia. - Dave
user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Milz'd due to a small perturbation Barkingsheltie 21:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - That's the fjact Jjack (seven)
user's fjirst and only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fjact is Amjerican slang used in many fylker, including Sogn og Fjordane and Sør-Trøndelag. Hjiddendragonet
user has..ohh, why do I bjother? gkhan 21:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

comment Any word that brings this many brand new users to this site can't be bad right?  ;-) I do get a sense of over potectiveness from the delete fjascists though.

  • Speedy. Protests aside, there's no reason to even have this. If you want to catalog your own in-group information you can start your own wiki.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 21:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment "Start your own club" he he he
  • Delete. No evidence that this word exists. There appears to be an unrelated non-English word with the same spelling. ManoaChild 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • New words enter the lexicon all of the time. Someone above cited "blog" as an example. I'm sure that there are many examples of words that are new and strange at first that are now considered a normal part of the lexicon. --- Bierboy
  • KeepI for one think that fjact should be a part of the English language. Why? Well, because there are all kinds of English words that give teachers teaching young children to read absolute fits because they are not spelled the way they sound. Furthermore, adding Fjact to Wikipedia will increase Wikipedia's accuracy. There are people in this world who use the word Fjact all the time. And I do mean all the time, in fact some of those people use it so much that it just gets tiring, and I end up making my way to bjed for the evening. -- kjnucklehead
User has only edited on this page Mr. Know-It-All 05:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep* Haters be danged. Fjact is as good as it gets.I use it daily, and look what its done for me! -- Muad'dib
  • Keep* If not for things like this, new words would never be coined, such as "Danked". Gimme a freakin break. -- Hesaias ;)
  • KeepThis word may have started on only one forum (RDO), but it has already gained the status of not needing an explanation there, and I, for one, have seen it appear on other Reef related forums. Give this a year. If it doesn't spread any further, then maybe delete this. I'd hate Wikipedia to miss a chance to be ahead of the curve... -- burntom
  • Gentle Wikipedia Moderators* - Since you all agree that this (and the other term I have submitted, 'milz') can be classified as an 'unstable neologism', I have entered these words here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms I assume that that is acceptable... --Cheese Sandwich
  • Move to List_of_protologisms Fjact is a common term in Northeast Ohio, at least in my house. --3M TA3
user has only edited on this page. Mr. Know-It-All 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A look at the sock-puppeting of this vote is proof enough of why this should be deleted. Mr. Know-It-All 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN: This has now become world-wide accepted terminology for auto-generated, unsubstantiated "facts." You absolutely must retain it as an entry, or risk losing credibility with a wide readership. And that, my friend, is a fjact. William Scott Associate Professor of Chemistry University of California, SC
This is the only edit by this IP user Mr. Know-It-All 05:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Djelete as fjast as pjossible. No joke. -- DS1953 05:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the socks just make me vote delete, and the nominator and previous are right too, of course.-Splash 15:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • no puppets here I just looked up "sock puppet" to see what you're talking about. Every single keep vote here came from a different person. Sure we all came from the same place, but have your admins check the IP addresses if you care. We're all in different cities.
  • Keep* - This voting process is enough validation of the word Fjact that it must be kept. --Bucolic Buffalo
  • MODERATORS - Is the Sexual slang article really necessary?? I mean... Wow. And here we are arguing over 'fjact', lol. Cheese Sandwich 18:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Boy, the necrophelia portion of it is a real treat. --CS
  • Cheese...After that post, I believe you deserve "the supreme houdini" pulled on you!

Scary stuff 'round these parts gentlemen...scary stuff. Slightly sickened, Manny

    • Well I hope that doesn't involve any santorum - I'm trying to cut down. --Cheese Sandwich
  • shocking...the only term I can use to describe the pedophelia section of that sexual slang article. Making light of such a serious topic seems a bit tasteless. How do I move to delete "michael jackson" from the list? I mean he was found innocent! I'm appalled...and it takes a heck of a lot to get me appalled, right Cheeso?  ;-) Manny
    • True, you usually qualify as the "appaller"... BTW, thought we are not sock-puppets, we do qualify as Meatpuppets. Manny, you are spicy Cuban meat (I presume). Cheese Sandwich 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Sexual slang also went up for deletion. It was an almost unanimous keep. Excepting your meatpuppets (good term btw) this is a unanimous delete. gkhan 21:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • "Meatpuppets" was defined in one of the sock-puppets topics. "Almost a unanimous keep", eh? How nice. Cheese Sandwich
        • Added my 2 cents in the "talk" section there. Cheese Sandwich
  • Speedy Delete a sad day for Wikipedia when Fjact stays. Rkevins82 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • All right already, delete the d*mn thing, no need for dramatics. Be happy, 'fjact' will be gone & Sexual slang will still be here. Jeez. I concede. Cheese Sandwich 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I concede. Delete fjact (and milz). Like I said, I've included them in the protolisms page. --Cheese Sandwich 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN this VFD Punkmorten 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- JamesTeterenko 18:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- why is this still here? David Henderson 05:35, 20 August 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.

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 DELETE

[edit] Re-encoding Glossary

Ineptly written infodump on digital video editing, with vanity link. Sandstein 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete already covered under digital video editing. Allegrorondo 20:16, 15 August 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.

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 kepe' keep. ;) - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typoglycemia

Term does not exist, nor is the study real (i.e. it is an urban legend currently making the email rounds) Kjl 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment As to whether it's an urban legend or not, Snopes' says undetermined. --Howcheng 23:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, you'll notice the actual term "Typoglycemia" doesn't appear in the Snopes article, nor did it in the original email I got a year or so ago - it seems like at the very least that the word itself was made up recently in that way that internet memes evolve... Kjl 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst doing a bit of digging on google I cam across this rather good source The page needs rewriting to explan that it isn't a real term but the element of truth behind it could make for a really good page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, I suppose we could make the page about the internet meme itself, as opposed to the supposed brain condition. Ah, actually, I see you are doing that right now.
  • Weak delete. This thing has been an Internet meme/urban legend for a while, but I have my doubts it's very notable or encyclopedic. --IByte 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well If I got one of these emails in my inbox I may very well want to check Wikipedia to see what if any on the email was true. It's notable enough to be veryifyable, which is what counts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (change of vote), the article is improving. --IByte 15:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep much better now. --Howcheng 15:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article has potential, just add a cleanup and stub tag. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, I originally started this Vfd (my first - be gentle, please) but now that the article is being expanded, it looks like a keeper to me as well. How do I go about removing the Vfd? In other news, where is the correct place to discuss the accuracy of the article? In particular, I don't think there is any element of truth to it at all - I think the "random jumbling" of letters in the email is not random at all; in particular, you'll notice that in all of the words, the ordering of the consonants is kept consistent, or if consonant order has been changed, only adjacent consonants have been switched, and then not separated by intervening vowels (e.g. according->aoccdrnig (accrdng->accdrng) & phenomenal->phaonmneal (both phnmnl), Cambridge->Cmabrigde (cmbrdg->cmbrgd)), but it is much harder to read, of course, if the letter order is actually jumbled: (e.g. phenomenal->pneanoemhl, According->adinroccg or Cambridge->Cimgadrbe). I'd just go edit the article myself, but I don't want to be all POV about it ;) Kjl 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To close a VfD, you sit back for a few days until the lag time is over and an administrator determines there are enough Keep votes to keep the article, and (s)he will remove the VfD tag. Further discussion of the article can be done on its Talk page. --IByte 00:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Kepe Atrilce has potnetail, mybae shulod be rmaend thugoh ;) Pakaran 01:05, 18 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milz

Unstable neologism used on a single website. Thatdog 22:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. - Thatdog 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article seems to be related to Fjact which is being VFD'd as well. Mr. Know-It-All 05:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe one of your criteria for counting a vote is for the user to have edited another page in the past. I for one have been a long standing member of 2 days now and have edited another page in the past. Therefore, I feel my vote to keep this lovely addition to the english language and the knowledge base of this encyclopedia should count in full. Thank youMannyrdo
  • FYI, I've added this (along with 'fjact') to the unstable neologisms (specifically the protologisms) page. Cheese Sandwich 14:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, forumcraft. Martg76 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn neologism. ManoaChild 00:01, 17 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weeno

Non-notable neologism. Google for weeno + vespa = 0 hits; weeno + drake = 15 hits, completely unrelated. DS 23:39, 15 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phedegahnishke

The only mention Google could find on this is a mention (on WIkipedia) of this being a Navaho racial slur for "whitey". This sort of corresponds with the article's description of the term as meaning a total achromatic lack of color, a paleness... in other words, "white". Does this really need an entry? Do we have anyone who actually speaks Navaho and can confirm/deny this? DS 23:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • If it can be confirmed as a real word, it should go straight to Wiktionary without passing go and collecting $200. -- BD2412 talk 00:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I saw this come through, did a search and I found a single hit, here. It's in honkey...the whole thing is a little circular for me. Rx StrangeLove 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a dictionary. Alex.tan 03:11, August 17, 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xarit

Non-english dicdef -- FP <talk><edits> 01:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Wiktionary Kappa 01:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It's already there. -- FP <talk><edits> 02:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
LOL that was quick. Kappa 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 :) -- FP <talk><edits> 02:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wiktionary. - Sikon 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now that it's there, redirects to wiktionary aren't usual. --Icelight 01:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe redirect to friend. - SimonP 01:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect to friend. Wgere would we stop - ami, freund, amigo .... ? --Cje 08:19, 16 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opa!

  • Delete: We may as well have a page dedicated to 'Oh!' or something. In either case, useless. x42bn6 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. bogdan | Talk 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot more could be written about this expression, which is famous here. Since Eh has an article, Opa! should, too. The title must change, however, because we have two ways to use/pronounce it. "Opa" can also mean "hey you made a mistake" or "I am happy" depending on how you pronounce it and how long you pronounce the O sound. "opa-opa" is also related, and I think it's used in songs. If you delete it, could someone please contribute it to my wiki? Www.wikinerds.org 10:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. / Peter Isotalo 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, this article can become encyclopedic.
      • We're not voting the potential in here. Right now it's a dictionary definition and as such it does not belong here. bogdan | Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia is not dictionary, it shouldn't have Eh, either. What I see here is double standards: What pity is it that eh, which is about the English-speaking world, is kept, while Opa!, which is about Greeks, is deleted! Www.wikinerds.org 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well... It's because of the international conspiracy against the Greeks. :-) bogdan | Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I copied the article to my wiki under the GFDL. Www.wikinerds.org 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Piffle. I'm a native Swede and I certainly haven't voted to keep eh and neither would I if it were VfD:ed. I've also VfD:ed native Swedish slang like blatte and svenne. This talk of making it encyclopedic is a really irrelevant self-supporting argument. / Peter Isotalo 22:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has encyclopedic potential.Kappa 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki, per Peter, bogdan. I don't see encyclopedic potential at all. Dottore So 16:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an example of a non-English interjection that is characteristic of a particular ethnic group or nationality, like eh or oy. It has cultural implications beyond a dry dictionary definition. The article should be marked as requiring improvement, however. --agr 16:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oy vey! When exactly did we become a dictionary? All interjections, slang words and idioms have some sort of cultural implications. Some more significant than others, but they're still expanded, anecdotal dictionary definitions. This is hardly nigger or gringo. / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. Denni☯ 17:54, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Delete unless "encyclopedic potential" is actualized before VfD expires. --Alan Au
  • Delete. Foreign dicdef in its current state. Would consider changing vote if article was expanded. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dic-def. Hamster Sandwich 01:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This should be marked as a stub not as a VfD. MATIA 15:29, 19 August 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.

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 KEEP. The votes are actually numerically almost equal, which would be a no-consensus keep. But most of the deletes were cast before the initial stub which is now in place was written and are clearly rejecting the adevertising content that was present at the time. All but one vote after the stub would keep — and one of the deleters allows for a "major rewrite" too. Further, the article has been further expanded since even most of the keep votes. -Splash 07:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gites in France

Entire article was written as excuse for external link to tourist web site. --rob 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete These articles should not even exist on wikipedia.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. --*drew 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's a major rewrite - there is certainly room for a good article on the topic. Dlyons493 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nelgallan 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hang on a minute folks!!!. the subject is encyclopedic, (though oddly Gite seems to be about an Indian game, and w:fr:gîte does not exist, (the correct spelling btw is gîte with the accent)). This is a major part of the culture of France, being rented accomodation, run by the company Gites de France [16]. Now granted, this article is pretty terrible, but I'll replace it with a deent stub, so super strong keep Dunc|☺ 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree with you (including the rename), *if* gîte is not a brand, but a common/generic word used in France. I'm a little confused, though, since the web site suggests of starting in 1951 with something "new" and non-traditional. But, surely there were summer homes before than; what were they called? Are all rented summer homes in France "Gites" (as answer.com implies), or is this just a brand? Is this the same as a Dacha? If it's a uniquely French version of Dacha than an article is easily (or as easily) justified. I just want to be sure we're not promoting somebody's brand, I admit ignorance about France on this. --rob 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a generic name. I think Gites de France act act as an agent for individual property owners. They are of course different culturally from Dachas, but it's the same idea. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. By an amazing coincidence, gîte has now appeared at French Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell it's no more informative than my French-Swedish dictionary definition. If someone can confirm that this term is commonly used in English, I will change my vote, but not if it's exclusively French. / Peter Isotalo 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I wrote it. French vfd is at w:fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer - I can list it for you if you like. And yes, they have enough cultural history, importance and the size to be encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not about to get involved in the internal matters of a wikipedia in a language I don't really speak. That it only appeared as an article now is not exactly speaking in favor of its notability, so please try to convince me with more than just assuring me it's encyclopedic. Is it used in English or not? Please show some examples. / Peter Isotalo 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • 415,000 Google hits restricted to English, though that in itself is not particularly strong. To reiterate then, the word gîte is used specifically for holiday cottages in France, a subject which has a history and cultural impact that is notable, hence encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Keep. Peter Isotalo 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See "gîte" on Wiktionary ;) Korg 00:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the "historic and cultural impact" expanded. Otherwise, possible redirect/merge to Cottage or Dacha. If unable to expand, transwiki to French Wiktionary. --Alan Au 23:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Cottage can be tranlated in French by "villa" or in some case by "résidence secondaire". In both case they are not vacation accomodation. A gîte is a type of vacation accomodation usually (but not always) for familly. Also, a datcha is also "datcha" in French, no relation with a "gîte". Romary 09:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Though I don't think I've ever stayed in one (tents are cheaper), they've certainly been advertised as such to british tourists for many years. Not sure I've got any holiday pamphlets from the 80s around to scan though, and that's the kinda thing that has 0 web presence. Not as common a term as 'villa' maybe, but certainly common. --zippedmartin 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like Dunc, please consider that gîte (and "Gîtes de France", a famous vacation accommodations chain) is a major part of the culture of France. Korg 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (See "gîte" on Wiktionary).
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
  • Delete as dicdef once the spam is removed. Vegaswikian 05:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is really a subject. The link to "gîte de France" can be removed. The subject can be developed by adding information on "Gîte d'étape" for the hikers and "gîte rural" for vacation accomodation. Romary 09:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh my god, I must be having a bad day! Anyway, I can honestly say that Gite (hat over the i) is a word in day to day use here in France and does, indeed, refer to a nationwide letting of cottage-type places. The article is a bit naff though and could do with a less spammy re-write. --Marcus22 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep From time to time, over the years, I have actually wondered just what a gîte is. I know it's some sort of holiday let thing, but how does it work? Are they owned by companies, or by individuals who stay there themselves? I have this notion that they are rural things, usually converted farmhouses - but is that true? Can there be gîtes in towns? And why are they called "gîtes" - a marketing thing? Is there a distinction between gîtes and other holiday homes? When did this gîte thing come about? I hope the article can be expanded so that I can get some answers.--Finbarr Saunders 22:25, 15 August 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.

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 wasdelete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody But Microsoft

Pseudolinguistics of no notability. Only used on ZDNet. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, borders on nonsense. Martg76 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Nandesuka 16:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NNNL (non-notable neologism) --IByte 15:39, 15 August 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.

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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Day After Tomorrow in International Languages

If this belonged anywhere, it should go into the Day After Tomorrow page, as a section. However, it is likely that if it was added to that page it would be edited out: this is simply not a level of trivial detail that most of our movie pages go into, or any other pages for that matter. The transliterated actors' names are not interesting: English Wikipedia routinely provides the native name (in a non-Latin-alphabet writing system) for foreign personal and place names; however, we don't provide transliterations into every conceivable non-Latin-alphabet writing system of English personal and place names. The movie title in foreign languages may be somewhat more interesting, since this is usually not a transliteration and often not even a translation, but often a newly chosen title. However, we would usually not routinely provide these unless they were of particular interest. See http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/ for some non-English titles of this movie. -- Curps 16:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Whatever, delete. Sandstein 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If this belonged anywhere, it should go into the in other languages link box on the Day After Tomorrow page, and the names of the characters are unenc in the English language WP. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mostly like DrTorstenHenning, Merge titles to Day After Tomorrow (IMDb lists alternate titles, why shouldn't we?), delete translated character names. --IByte 21:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge anything useful into the movie article. There's no need to have an international titles article for every movie, and this film wasn't particularly successful anyway. 23skidoo 02:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge - A satire on Japanese Engrish ?--Jondel 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing to merge as all Japanese names are incorrect. In this case, the Japanes movie title is just transliteration ('the' is ommited though) so there are no need to mention it in Day After Tomorrow page. --Kusunose 10:46, 15 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ckl

Obscure leetspeek definition, probably vanity. Sandstein 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity, IRC-cruft. Nandesuka 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- obscure indeed --Mysidia (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Mairi 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • dlt! LOL! Sdedeo 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sdedeo: Please clarify, is dlt short for a delete vote?
      • Yes. I am working on a wikipedia article documenting my new coinage. (No, I'm not, don't worry.) Sdedeo 15:08, 18 August 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.

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 de;ete. - Mailer Diablo

[edit] Sad rea;;y

Non-notable typocruft from one single webforum. De;ete. DS 17:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Web-cruft not notable outside of its own forum. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • De;ete. Non-notab;e neo;ogism. -- BD2412 ta;k 17:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- for the reasons already presented --Mysidia (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Soltak 20:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Del;;ete — Whoops, typo. RJH 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and ban creator for time wasting. Erwin Walsh
    We don't do that, but I think forumcruft is on its way to becoming the next speedy criterion. Gazpacho
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:40:18, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • De;ete. Non-notab;e. --GraemeL 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Votes were altered by 24.158.168.207 (talk • contribs) on 22:58, 14 August 2005. User has been warned on talk page. --Alan Au 23:37, 14 August 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Eagle

Neologism/dicdef, your choice. Seems to have been created solely to slur certain people. User:Outlanderssc has done a good job to clean that stuff up, but I don't think the article is encyclopaedic even after the edits. "Paper Eagle" scout gets hardly any hits on Google, while "Paper Eagle" on its own is mostly unrelated. fuddlemark 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Sandstein 19:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Dottore So 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V. Watch that page. The anon reverted the personal attack.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:33:02, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.14.130 (talk • contribs) at 2005-08-15 02:17:01.
  • Delete as per nominator - Agreed, the author seems to have a private agenda. --Outlander 21:43, 15 August 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beardy

Definition of a warhammer gaming term. No thanks. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 19:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Meh. Delete. Shimgray 20:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Warhammer? Else Delete. --Celestianpower hab 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm kinda tempted to keep this in some form, I've heard it used outside games workshop circles. 's a bit dicdef though. --zippedmartin 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn neologism. Martg76 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism and dictdef. Part of me is tempted to write a blatantly POV screed about the essentially insane tournament culture in WHFB and WH40K, where sportsmanship boils down to "win by as little as possible, and do everything you can to make it look like it was a matter of luck," because Games Workshop can't be bothered to prevent power creep or even bother to rigorous outside playte-...uh, right. Neologism and dictdef. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Richard Branson or Noel Edmunds Delete. David | Talk 11:19, 16 August 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.

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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toggled

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete No it's not Soltak 00:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiktionary already has "toggle" in this sense Tonywalton 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy'd. Wiktionary already has it, as per above. -Hmib 00:52, 13 August 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.

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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 02:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annual Titles

Delete Dictionary definition with vanity PhilipO 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per PhilipO. AlbertR 01:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Jaxl | talk 02:27, 13 August 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.

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 no consensus. Woohookitty 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual slurs

  • Delete most of these I have never heard in my life, and it seems people are making them up or using obscure ones. --Revolución (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Remove the obscure and/or madeup ones and it should be OK. Moving the top content into a separate article on the subject wouldn't hurt as well. AlbertR 03:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. As per Albert R. Additionally this kind of glossary is IMHO legitimate content - the content of language and the variation between dialects of English is fascinating. Cspalletta, 16 August 2005
  • Delete—Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. What use could this possibly be to anyone? Notable terms have their own articles. Non-notable terms are not encyclopedic. --Tysto 05:29, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've never heard of most of these, and I'm not exactly sheltered. I'm inclined to move the content to the talk page and advise the editors that they need to cite the usage of these slurs in print or else they're not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; comprehensive but inappropriate. Erwin Walsh
  • No encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sex-related slang. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I recognize problems with this page. The principal problem is a lack of citations resulting in a mass of unverified information. It also acts as trollbait. However I don't see this as a problem best solved by deletion. Compare with List of ethnic slurs. I'd favour a fairly radical cleanup. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: rather unencyclopedic and magnet for trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure how to keep this from becoming Urbandictionary. Rkevins82 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vozenilek. MicahMN | Talk 21:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The scope of the list is very unclear and a very obvious troll 'n' vandal heaven. / Peter Isotalo 00:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If WP has a list of racial slurs which has been put up for deletion but for which the consensus is that it should be kept, surely this is in the same category? -- Ledow 16:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are problems with a list of unverified information. But deletion of information is never justified. However, I think a cleanup is in order. user:Aronomy 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's ridiculous. Deletion of some information is certainly justified. That's what this forum is about. Vanity, advertising, ephemera, slang definitions, and unverifiable junk should all be deleted, true or not. --Tysto 03:27, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very unclear as to criteria for inclusion. This seems to be more a list of sexual slang than sexual slurs. I agree that there is plenty of opportunity here to insert made-up terms since the list as a whole is virtually impossible to verify. And if someone wants to insert words they just made up or are directed at a particular orientation or race, it creates work for others to delete them. At the very least I think this is perhaps more appropriate for Wiktionary. 23skidoo 02:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:06
  • Strong Keep. This is just another example of the prigs that want to make Wikipedia "politically correct". User:WehrWolf 2005 August 15
  • Delete. Most lists are suspect anyway, especially one of as little value as this. Lists without any context or background are pointless. Some of these words might be deserving of their own articles, which could explore their history and background and usage, but most of them belong in a dictionary of some sort, not in an encyclopedia. Peyna 17:13:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced, and full of dubious neologisms. A number of our lists have these same problems. -Willmcw 18:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Isn't it time we quit being a bunch of sensitive Sallys? (and more like insensitive Harrys?) User:Can'tStandYa 22:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.  Grue  07:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very Interesting. User:CaptainJackWill 08:45, 16 Aug 05 (UTC)
  • Comment. IMO, User:CaptainJackWill, User:Can'tStandYa, and User:WehrWolf are all sock puppets of user:155.84.57.253 (who, not incidentally, contributed a large part of this article as well as other similar lists). -Willmcw 20:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Counter Comment. Willmcw has since removed his block after this user explained that several other users share a networked cable connection in their workplace with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. Can'tStandYa 08:24, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
      • No, I removed the IP block because that is standard protocol when blocking sock puppet accounts. The similarities extend far beyond a shared IP address. I don't know where you sent your explanation, but I've never seen it. -Willmcw 20:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you need to update your email address in your profile. Here is a condensed version of the email: "Dear Sir or Madam, My Wiki club has asked me to contact you about removing the block. Our club has several registered and a few unregistered members. We all work for a large federal agency and share a networked cable connection with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. We frequently meet for lunch and discuss wiki topics. Thank you in advance, Can'tStandYa" The similarities you say you observed may result from lunch conversations and common interests (we are all geek/engineer types). Additionally, user:155.84.57.253 is not a single person but a composite of several unregistered users - I'm trying to get them all to register to close down user:155.84.57.253 Entries as 155.84.57.253 also occur when registered users lose their log-in in the middle of a session, and when registered users forget to log-in. Can'tStandYa 2005 August 18
  • Keep. I think the page is indeed useful. There is a page entitled List of Racial Slurs. This page could obviously do with a clean up. However, I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant for someone perhaps researching homophobia or misogyny to garner some insight into the terms of abuse that are used towards gays, women, an other minorities. - ExRat 03:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with user ExRat. Shran 04:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, impossible to maintain as none are sourced. If we only accept sourced ones the list would be sorely incomplete. Glad someone finally VfDed this, even if it does survive. --fvw* 04:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and add citations. Saswann 19:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems fine 2 me -TonyTheTerrier 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it gives a valuable insight into the evolution and sociology of language.
  • Keep, It is very informative on words in the english language and teaches us how they came to be.
  • Keep, wow I just found out about [[Ladyboy]s / Kathoey only because of this list - I would never have read about their social problems in Thailand without this List of sexual slurs. Keep, keep, keep.
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.

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 ambiguous.

I count 2 "keep" votes to 4 "delete" opinions (including my own). I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision but will implement it by replacing the article with the soft-redirect,Template:Wi. Rossami (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Card-carrying-members

Seems to be a dicdef. Delete. AlbertR 03:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't think it even belongs in List of political epithets. Gazpacho 03:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Denni☯ 21:55, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. So it's a stub. So what? --Matt Yeager 04:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • So it never has a hope of becoming anything other than a stub, and belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Denni☯ 06:37, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article, after slight expansion, is worthy to be kept in an encyclopedia. Deryck C. 12:22, 20 August 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/QN Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/sd

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 DELETE

[edit] Masturbitching

No Google matches at all, and the article's about a made-up word that is, apparently, used by a rather small group of people online. I don't feel this is speedy material, though, so I put it up here. Solver 23:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unable to verify that this is anything but a neologism. ManoaChild 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 00:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nnneologism. Even Urbandictionary hasn't heard of it...yet. -Splash 01:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Every word has to start somewhere and some time. It's a small article, and it's not verfiably inaccurate. -Holly_Wight 22:26, 13, August 2005 (EST)
    • That may be, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote new terms. android79 02:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. android79 02:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 15 August 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.

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 Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chak

delete fancruft neologism Ben-w 00:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agree <drini ☎> 00:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. silly. Hamster Sandwich 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have an entry for Grok, which is a made up verb from Stranger in a Strange Land with an indefinite meaning, it warrants its article from its impacts. If this word has any, its legit, if not, delete. My vote will remain delete until evidence of impact is shown. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gaming neoligism.--nixie 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, special interest slang, not a dictionary anyway. --Apyule 05:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree. Alex.tan 06:38, August 12, 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.

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 delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting The Brush

Delete. POV neologism. 44 unique Google hits for "cutting the brush" bush. android79 03:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hopelessly POV neologism. Alternately, Googling "cutting the brush" politics returns exactly one relevant result -- from talkleft.com. No way to even bother trying to NPOV this one. Lomn 03:13:42, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Delete (though he's right). Eixo 03:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. DS1953 05:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. *sigh* Alex.tan 06:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no angryleftist.wikipedia.org section to move it to. JDoorjam 15:53, 12 August 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.

. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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 delete. I decline the recommendation to redirect to "grandiloquence" because that article also is a mere dictionary definition with, in my opinion, no possibility of expansion. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandiloquent

Dicdef already in Wiktionary. Kushboy 03:34, August 12, 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.

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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 15:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EverQuest Slang, Acronyms, Lingo

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a lexicon of MMORPG terms. Delete. Essjay · Talk 05:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Essjay. --Apyule 05:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The guide to EverQuest on Wikibooks now has a Glossary of terms. It may seem familiar. ☺ Uncle G 12:04:12, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is already a WikiBooks chapter on EverQuest Glossary (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/EverQuest/Glossary), and because I do not think every single game (or other "thing") should have a list of jargon in an encyclopedia (there is a policy to avoid dictionary definitions?), and also because the EverQuest article already has a list of the most common terms specific to the game. Finally I suggest, if the article is kept, it should be renamed to conform to the naming convention regarding capitalization of title. -- Ajshm 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete This appears to be a growing list of terms that are not covered in other articles, including the EverQuest article. Suggest 1> this article should remain and the list inside the existing EverQuest article should be removed, and a link published to this article, or 2> this list should replace the existing list inside the EverQuest article, or 3> we should adhere to the policy regarding dictionary definitions and remove all lists from the EverQuest article, and publish a link to this text where it resides on Wikibooks, or 4> we remove all lists from all EverQuest article, encourage the author to host the file on his site, and publish an off-site link to his text, or 5> we remove all such dictionary lists from Wiki and actively discourage their future creation.
    • comment: unsigned 1st and 2nd edits by IP 12.160.150.101, though this one does have more defs than its Wikibooks counterpart, he's right to suggest transwiki (or at least transmerge). Marblespire 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The Wikibook glossary has exactly the same number of definitions; and transwikification was not one of xyr suggestions. Uncle G 02:29:02, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Merge into the appropriate l33tspeak article. Does cover quite a bit, though. -Hmib 01:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte per Ajshm. --Nandesuka 05:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Visual77 I think we should remove this page, merge all terms into the MMORPG terms and acronyms article, and then format that article into multiple sections, one for general terms that exist in multiple games, and move the game specific terms into their own sections for those games
  • Commenting again from 12.160.150.101, how do I sign? Anyway, /agree with Visual77, great idea for consolidation - can TOC-style links be used in the multiple game articles, to link to their specific section of the larger list? And the Wikibooks article is a copy of this one, check the edit dates.
  • Delete if the wikibook covers the same info or Merge into the MMORPG terms and acronyms and work on the formatting of that article (which oddly I mentioned earlier today on the Talk:MMORPG terms and acronyms page, entirely unconnected to this discussion) :) --Syrthiss 20:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Uncle G--nixie 03:41, 17 August 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.

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 KEEP. -Splash 01:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vainglory

Dicdef. Almost identical def in Wiktionary. Kushboy 07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, being one of 8 deadly passions is encyclopedic. Kappa 08:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is more than a dicdef, there is information in the article about the history vainglory as a deadly passion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Perhaps vainglory should be a ground for deletion. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep historical value beyond a dict. entry Dottore So 22:59, 12 August 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.

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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 05:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1098 (number)

Says nothing other than how it is represented in different bases and what its factors are; no reason why this number should have its own page. Should be speediable under any number of criteria, but what the hell. sjorford →•← 11:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - otherwise this sets a precident for clogged up wikipedia with a infinite number of similiar articles. Markb 11:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, numbercruft. — JIP | Talk 11:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles listing a number, its divisors, and the numbers before and after it can be generated by the thousands (well, theoretically, they can be infinitely many). Not a notable number. Oleg Alexandrov 11:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not infinite. This number does not satisfy the notability and inclusion criteria for numbers. Delete. Uncle G 12:26:27, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Delete, but Comment: I would really love to know why 1098 made the grade. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 12:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - little or no context, and no information that isn't obvious from its title. Radiant_>|< 13:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Uncle G and Markb. Carbonite | Talk 13:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with compliments to Uncle G for his well-written and referenced userspace page on "Wikipedia is not infinite". -Satori 17:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 1000 (number) where the interesting aspects of this number are already mentioned. — RJH 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you're confusing it with 1089, which does warrant its own page. sjorford →•← 08:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, redirect 1098 to 1000 is much like redirecting the US to the UK, they have no relation to one another! -Splash 15:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Oleg Alexandrov. --Tim Pope 19:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is nothing here to keep! -Splash 00:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lol. I added it to the 1000 page, though. --Matt Yeager 04:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silliness. linas 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Oleg Alexandrov -- Arthur Rubin 22:25, 17 August 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.

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chocolatefoot]}}

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbrekkene

Stub about a Norwegian surname. Should probably be speediable, but it seems it isn't. The article mentions the name comes from some Norwegian town or something, but a google search didn't get me any results in English, and my Norwegian is sub-par, to say the least. -R. fiend 15:19, 12 August 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.

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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pagger

dicdef for apparently obscure slang, delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Laur 18:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete dictdef. And seemingly pretty obscure. UkPaolo 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef/neologism. Jaxl | talk 22:23, 12 August 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.

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 Merge and Redirect to Batman. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bat-Embargo

Neologism used to define a restriction of the use of Batman characters to certain movies and shows, dissalowing their use in shows such as Justice League Unlimited. Not notable enough for an article of this own. Merge and redirect to Batman. The article is short enough (three sentences) that it will not be an issue to merge it. FuriousFreddy 21:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Batman. -Satori 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with DC Animated Universe as it has more to do with that than Batman. KramarDanIkabu 23:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you want it merged, don't bring it to VfD. You can do the merging yourself. -- Visviva 07:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If I'm 100% sure I should merge something, uit gets merged. This is a case where I wanted a group consensus before doing something that might draw the ire of other editors. --FuriousFreddy 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Discuss it on the talk page then. Snowspinner 00:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Snowspinner 00:03, August 22, 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.

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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Svenne

Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable, could be expanded. We have articles such as Gringo or Kraut. Martg76 22:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Martg76. feydey 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per same reasoning under Blatte. BrainyBroad 11:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peter Isotalo's reasoning above. / Alarm 08:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll have to vote Keep here too, as I did to Blatte (using same explanation)... --Fred-Chess 12:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as per my motivation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blatte. Let's wait and see a few months and revisit the issue then. Tupsharru 06:37, 19 August 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.

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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blatte

Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable, could be expanded. We have articles such as Gringo or Kraut. Martg76 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But gringo and kraut are commonly understood English words these days. Googling gives no hits with this usage (in English, at least) in the first 50 or so listings. Delete. BrainyBroad 11:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • As a native speaker of Swedish and being a fluent English speaker since the age of 10, I can confirm this. It is an exclusively Swedish term. / Peter Isotalo 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see why English terms should take precedence over others (if those are encyclopedic/notable). Even though written in English language, this is an encyclopedia with global appeal. Martg76 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It's an English language encyclopedia. It might have global appeal, but it's still written in English and including slang notable only in languages other than English is going, far past any reasonble interpretation of our inclusion policies. It's one thing to include persons, ideas, events and places not notable or even completely unknown in English-speaking countries, but slang terms... That's just taking it too far. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide? / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • That argument is inconsistent. If that is your opinion, why don't you put Kraut or Gringo for deltion, or Johann Gottfried Piefke, who is really only notable because of the slang term? Wikipedia isn't an English slang dictionary either, is it? Martg76 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
            • It's realistic, if anything. I'm seriously unamused by the though of keeping every imaginable slang in term notable only in every imaginable language besides English. I think it lowers the general credibility and standards of Wikipedia and encourages additions of other articles on idioms known only to non-English speakers which are difficult to verify and is very hard to put some decent limit on. A lot of slang in most languages is extremely notable and there's always information to add about which of social or ethnic groups that use it, etymology, differing pronunciation, etc. etc. It's very easy to claim that nearly any common slang term should be included. Kraut and gringo, just like nigger, are veritable institutions of the English language, and keeping such extremely notable English-language terms (even if I would prefer not to have them) feels like a very reasonable compromise to me; extending this reasoning to other languages does not. And Pfieke is a poor example in this context since he is a person who has done other things besides become famous for being associated with an idiom and... well... he's a person, not a slang term. / Peter Isotalo 10:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peter Isotalo. / Alarm 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm sorry for disagreeing... exclusively Swedish term? yes. -- but being non-notable is (i think) not a reason by itself for deletion... m:wikipedia is not paper, and all that... --Fred-Chess 12:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • If a non-English dictionary slang term is not a reason for deletion, then what is? / Peter Isotalo 15:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Having thought about this a bit, I have decided to vote weak keep, as this and "blatte" both are slang terms used frequently in modern Swedish society, and can probably be linked from articles on Swedish youth culture and immigration issues. "Blatte" already has a link from the article on the Swedish hip hop group The Latin Kings. I'm not adverse to revisiting the issue if the articles haven't shown signs of growth in six or twelve months. I have asked User:Tsaddik Dervish, who writes articles on Swedish hip hop, to look at the articles. Tupsharru 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Article growth isn't the issue here. Even unencyclopedic articles can grow exponentially in notime. Just look at list of common phrases in various languages. People voted to keep it, but just try making it fit with Wikipedia is not slang and idiom guide and you get non sequitur arguments. / Peter Isotalo 15:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I still think small discussions, like this one, are useful. I'd say people have a right to have their opinions and votes, no matter their logical correctness... in fact , using the argument "I like waffles" would be just as valid as anything for voting... Otherwise, the List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand would surely have been deleted by now... --Fred-Chess 08:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • If neither logic nor reason are expected nor asked for in these discussions, we might as well not have the discussions at all and just have unmotivated, silent (hell, even secret) votes. Demanding respect (not acceptance) for making non sequitur argumentation is only going to further polarize the inclusionist/deletionist discourse and keep fueling bitter disputes among Wikipedians. At the very least admit that it's about a form of opinion-pushing, not a product of well-balanaced reasoning. Anyone who claims that your above example is a healthy sign of quality improvement should think it over. It strikes me as being closer to rules lawyering than reasonable argumentation. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 20 August 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twatwaffle

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Twatwaffle/2005-05-21.

dicdef neologism Randwicked 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This article apparently of different content to original deleted article. I've reactivated this page, don't know if there's a way to start a new one.

  • Delete: more content for the much-awaited UrbanWiktionary.com JDoorjam 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and speedy if it's recreated. Ben-w 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdefs don't belong here. I suggest that this be put on Wictionary, if anything. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:00, 11 August 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.

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henticles

Article is on a supposed portmanteau of hentai and tenticles [sic]. Even if it were a real word, it's a non-notable neologism. A misspelled one. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --R.Koot 20:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DS1953 22:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tentacle rape. While I have heard the term more than a few times (and arguably) it is somewhat of a neologism, redirecting it to the appropriate article will solve the problem neatly.--Mitsukai 16:11, 15 August 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.

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 Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behanchod

Dicdef. Thue | talk 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- Rename to Bhenchod, can be expanded. User:Nichalp/sg 07:14, August 16, 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm in a rat in a cage

A fairly blatant attempt to "evangelize" this catchphrase, as the "Regal Social Club" (rather undoubtedly the page's authors) are openly declared to be doing. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I hate these stupid attempts to popularize stupid injokes. Ben-w 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Self-promotion by a small group. Phrase not yet in any significant real use. Note, these appear to be energetic self-promoters who have already created a website, http://www.iminaratinacage.com/ There are only thirteen Google hits currently on "I'm in a rat in a cage," but this will probably increase as they continue to add references everywhere that allows user-added content. As always, Google Groups is a useful second gauge: there are no hits at all on the exact phrase in Google Groups. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Damn. This is just a few words off of being a decent redirect to Bullet with Butterfly Wings. Oh well. Delete. android79 01:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 01:45:33, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is like some new gold standard of a vanity page. Nandesuka 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can find the importance of this article. (The Horse 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. very well written for nn vanity nonsense, deserves a honorable deletion. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-van. MicahMN | Talk 19:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. if "stupid in-joke" isn't good enough, I guess vanity will have to do.
  • Delete. nn. --Apyule 05:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know if this is significant or not, but in the last 13 months, I've seen the phrase written on a park bench at the national mall in Washington D.C., on a flyer promoting a new night club in Chicago, and I heard an announcer use the phrase at a rodeo in my hometown of Memphis.
  • Keep Clearly an inside joke, but it may be becoming big enough to deserve recognition...I've seen bumper stickers in three different states and have heard people mention it more than once.Scottbeowulf 05:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) — (Scottbeowulf's 1st edit.)
    • If someone will upload a picture showing the phrase on a park bench, a night club flyer, or a bumper sticker, with an affirmation, using their real name and contact information, that the picture was taken in good faith (i.e. not a phony created by the uploader or an accomplice), I will change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Google test, non-notable, inside joke, etc. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 14 August 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.

Here's a park bench photo. I took this pic at a park in downtown San Francisco yesterday: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/NicCageSticker.jpg

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scienceite

Neologism --malathion talk 01:51, 9 August 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.

[edit] Deez nuts

Because it's already been deleted once and belongs on urbandictionary, not here. AshTM 06:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deez nuts

Deeez Nuuuts was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deeez Nuuuts.

Slang that is most likely only known to the author and his buddies. Dismas 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Certainly not a neologism, I've seen it on chat and forums for years. I suppose it comes from some rap artist, which would make it a redirect. Gazpacho 03:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Identifying which rap artist coined this term would probably be a chore, but yeah, it's not a neologism. Redirect to Nut unless a better target is determined. android79 03:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If I recall correctly, the first rap group to use it was N.W.A. That being said, it existed before then (I distinctly remember hearing it back as early as the 70s). By no means is this a neologism (you can count this is a Keep, BTW).--Mitsukai 14:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non encyclopedic nonsense. I trust Gazpacho that its not a neologism. Hamster Sandwich 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Only if this can be identified as not being nonsense.(The Horse 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
    • So what's the exact definition of nonsense and how do we prove it? :-) / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid slang term. Not nonsense.(Jonsey 10:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
    • Please observe that our official policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. We have a dictionary over there, which welcomes both readers that want to look up words in a dictionary and editors that want to construct a dictionary. Uncle G 09:39:55, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm with Gazpacho; I've heard that phrase since at least 1994, so it's not a neologism at all. Like Android79 said, trying to find which rapper started the whole thing...that could be the rub.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This made the rounds years ago...I just wish I knew where it came from. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "Years ago" is a very short time span when it comes to language. It needs to be around a while longer to be considered anything but a sub-culture specific fad. / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A patently clear delete. Utterly unencyclopedic nonsense.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:02:49, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Neuter as nonsensical. (sorry, couldn't resist. That's a delete.) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable slang idiom. / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Deez", used as a profanity, short for "deez nuts" (or "these testicles"), is not a neologism. I've seen it used in the Boondocks ("So you don't believe in Santa Claus, Riley?" "You know what I believe in?" "What?" "Deez." "...there is no call for that kind of language!") and in a fan letter to a Milestone comic ("you guys are the phattest, and the rest can get deez!!!"), among others; in both cases (printed over ten years apart), the reader was expected to know what was meant (the Boondocks one actually wound up on CIDU, which is how I learned what it meant). It's a bit tricky to Google for, but it's there in the tens of thousands of hits. Move to Deez, and expand Or, alternately, transwiki to Wiktionary. But don't delete. DS 13:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said in the prior VFD discussion, you are welcome to come and add deez to Wiktionary. Please, if possible, provide proper quotations, as per Wiktionary:quotations, to stave off any disputes. The non-idiomatic combinations, or the album track title components that occur in no other independent contexts, would probably get nominated for deletion, though. Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • transwiki to Wiktionary. Youngamerican 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary will say no thank you. It's a simple, unidiomatic, combination of the words "deez" and "nuts". Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • There's nothing worth merging here, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. This is a simple non-idiomatic combination of two slang words. For the same reasons as I gave in the prior VFD discussion, redirect to The Chronic. Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete deez Tonywalton 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is slang and non-encyclopedic. Once again, a potential charter member of UrbanWiktionary.com. JDoorjam 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Or speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo
  • Delete - This crap should stay at urbandictionary. I don't even think it deserves a redirect, who is going to goto wikipedia to look up Deez nuts?!?! - Hahnchen 01:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Hahnchen. --Cholmes75 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiki not dictionary Renata3 14:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't even belong in Wiktionary. ral315 14:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's been deleted before. Wiktionary won't even want it. Try urbandictionary. Also, the only time I've heard "deez nutz" is on Chappelle's Show or something of the sort. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - JamesTeterenko 06:16, 20 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banal

A dictionary entry, but Wiktionary already has its own article on banal. Kushboy 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As per above , Manik Raina 12:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Same reasons as above, but I'm just trying to establish a consensus here.--Frag 13:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yep jamesgibbon 13:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can it be speedied? Proto t c 15:07, 9 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alanna

WP:WINAD. Dicdef. Already transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 04:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if said article has already been transwikied. ral315 14:25, August 10, 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anemocracy

Neologism. Complete text is "An obscure nonce word meaning government by the wind." Obscure is right, Google returns 200 hits, of which the top are all Wikipedia and mirrors. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Eclipsed 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the nonce word article Allegrorondo 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike the examples in nonce word, this one really was only used once. --Carnildo 23:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. On its talk page it says that it has been transwikied to wiktionary, but I don't see it there. For now, unless some proof is given of its existence, it must go. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Grr... why doesn't anyone ever read that whole template? See here. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, August 10, 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ape Shit

A somewhat neologistic (I hadn't heard of it but Google shows it to be at least verifiable, if not overly common) dicdef. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied for what it's worth. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdef. I think that it is a well-known expression - a regional thing, perhaps. If it has already been transwikied, there is no reason to keep it. ManoaChild 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. No room for expansion as I see it. And yes, it's a common term, I've heard it used and used it myself since I was a kid. Dismas 09:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a dicdef but definitely don't call it a neologism. It's been around at least 20 years or so, and was well-known enough by 1989 that it was parodied in the video game title Toki: Going Ape Spit Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Not a neologism, but more commonly spelled apeshit.-choster 14:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Osomec 05:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although it is a fairly common expression in certain parts, it's definitely non-encyclopaedic Zaw061 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not neologism, but dicdef. ral315 14:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a well established expression but has no place here. Keresaspa 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey, don't go apeshit on me, just delete it already. Cyprus 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This entry looks suspiciously like something from Urban Dictionary, which is a fine website but should be kept at arm's length from WP. Paul 05:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would point out that wiktionary already has an entry for apeshit. David Henderson 17:51, 17 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attercop

A dicdef of an archaic word. WP:WINAD and it's already at Wiktionary. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as dicdef Tonywalton 19:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, doesn't belong here --Apyule 06:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't need an article. ral315 14:26, August 10, 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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the jennings effect"

A non-notable meme first uttered less than an hour prior to the creation of the article. Zoe 23:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If that doesn't classify as a neologism, I don't know what does. --IByte 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A massive thousand people movement within a day?, and how would you even know if a person (neverless 1000 people) quit smoking in that time? →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 23:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious neologism Soltak 23:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wishful thinking. -- BD2412 talk 01:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Osomec 06:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as day-old neologism. ral315 14:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Peter Jennings. Many people indeed have quit smoking following the death of Peter Jennings (for example, this news article [17]), but I'm not sure this needs its own article. --Revolución (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Another page created two days later [Jennings Effect] attracted no such discussion. Interesting ...

    • This page did not assert that thousands of people quits smoking, it simply said discussion of quitting was higher. Also, this page clearly makes the page in question obsolete, as it is better written and less presumptuos. Before someone suggests it, no redirect, because who is going to type in "The Jennings Effect", before Jennings Effect. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:58, August 12, 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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legolism

A word or phrase that has been recently coined. (A Neologism!). -Satori 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete What else is there to add? Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Blaise Douros

I've heard it used, and not at this St. Olaf place.

  • Delete neologism --IByte 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism, although ironically this vote would be a Legolism if only my ears were pointier and I had mad longbow skilz.--Scimitar parley 23:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. --Revolución (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delegolas - neolegolism. -- BD2412 talk 01:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. ral315
  • Delete as neolologism. --Several Times 15:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP I have heard this used in several places due to the lack of lines given to Legolas that actually had any point, and for the purpose stated. Stating the ridiculously obvious is a Legolism. (previous unsigned comment by 216.129.191.143 (talk • contribs))
  • Delete. Neologism, and not even a very accurate one. "Blood has been spilled this night" is not an obvious statement to make, merely based on the color of a sunrise. A better fantasy film example of such a occurance is General Kael in Willow, whose every command is a blatantly obvious statement. "Get him!", "Where is the baby...look everywhere!", "after him!" -R. fiend 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, even if this wikipedia place doesn't have it as an official word, who cares? Whoever is silly enough to actually argue over whether it gets kept or not, it will still be a word! The word rocks! I say keep it, but who cares? (previous unsigned comment by 138.129.89.20 (talk • contribs))
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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grundel

This is a joke MicahMN | Talk 19:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; it's also a copyvio from urbandictionary.com. [18] Jaxl | talk 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Explodicle 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Jaxl --Apyule 06:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki. ral315 14:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hope urbandictionary material doesn't start finding its way over here. Second one I've seen, it could become a problem. Paul 05:27, 14 August 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.

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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 91100 (number)

Neologism from a movie. Article does not mention any mathematical properties.

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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chum (The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress)

This article is about a piece of made-up slang in the Robert A. Heinlein novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

  • The term is not notable.
  • The article consists mainly of nonverifiable speculation about the possible connotations of the word.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bcrowell 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Great book, but the new use of the word is hardly worth noting. Allegrorondo 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly merge with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as the content is valuable analysis, though it does not deserve its own page. -- Bubbachuck 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: After I did the vfd, the creator of the article, WpZurp, changed the vfd to a speedy deletion, with the comment "fine, if you don't like it then just kill it."--Bcrowell 19:31, 9 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doing a Souness

This page seems to exist merely to disparage Souness. The term does not exist in the wild, and no other article links to this one. See also Talk:Doing a Souness. MarkGallagher 17:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as personal attack and neologism. More the latter than the former. --Several Times 18:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Doing a Sunderland above. Delete Tonywalton 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just this month's piece of bitter humour. Could have been said about almost any football manager at one time or another. And he'll be a hero this time next month if Newcastle win their first few Premiership games. Osomec 06:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete NN, NPOV --Apyule 06:43, 10 August 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.

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 Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doing a Sunderland

Obscure; essentially a dictionary definition; unencyclopaedic; the text is POV, the whole subject is inherently POV. --Ngb 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dictionary definition at best. Sliggy 17:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sunderland FC, if anything can be salvaged.Allegrorondo 18:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably written by a Newcastle United fan like myself. Let's face it, we haven't much else to celebrate. Delete Tonywalton 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, weak Keep. The phrase is in reasonably wide use to mean what the author says it means- this isn't necessarily POV any more than using the phrase "do a Hindenburg" to mean "crash and burn" implies a hatred of hydrogen-filled German dirigble airships. It's more of a dicdef though, really, hence the "weak" bit Tonywalton 20:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The same phrase is also used with a completely different meaning, though. To do a Sunderland can also mean to pull off a major cup upset (as per Sunderland vs Leeds, 1973 FA Cup final). Grutness...wha? 02:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sunderland FC as Allegorondo, subject to evidence that the phrase is notable.(Is that how this is meant to be done?)--MarkGallagher 21:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course it isn't notable. Suggesting it should be merged with the Sunderland article is ridiculous. Sunderland fans would just delete it and they would be quite right to do so. It is simply abusive humour by a fan of a rival club. Osomec 06:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ral315 14:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious deletion, for all the reasons mentioned already --Khendon 16:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The phrase will change when the next team to be badly relegated go down e.g. 'do a Swindon' from about ten years ago. Keresaspa 16:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course, useful content. How this is a dictdef is beyond me.  Grue  18:41, 12 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social-traitor

Non-notable phrase. --Tothebarricades 16:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes to Social-Chauvinism, which is similar but better. Not to Social-traitor. The hyphen suggests that the article was written by a non-native English speaker, I'm guessing French. That's not grounds for deletion, and I imply nothing by mentioning this; it's just an observation.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Social-Chauvinism. --Apyule 06:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Social-Chauvinism. --Revaaron 12:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Social-Chauvinism article is much better written, more commonly used term.
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.

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 merge with democracy. No consensus to delete, but unanimous consensus that the article should not remain as it is. There is a majority of "delete"-votes but Wikipedia is not a democracy... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "is not a democracy"

"'is not a democracy' is a common phrase." Well, so is "is not a monarchy," "is not a dictatorship," "is not a fascist state," and (my personal favorite) "is not a fundamentalist Hindu theocracy ruled by green Martians in feather headdresses." My point is, the article is supposed to be about a common phrase, but if it accomplishes that it's only a (strange) dicdef. This isn't Wiktionary or Wikiquote territory, and it certainly isn't Wikipedia territory. Just delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons above. —Seselwa 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "is not a Keep." Fernando Rizo T/C 03:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for an article on this. --Apyule 07:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Democracy. It's a common enough political statement that it deserves some clarification. — RJH 16:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. --Sleepyhead81 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Democracy, as per RJH's statement.--Frag 20:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - if votes approve, I'll merge it into the Democracy aticle. ~ Dpr 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This "is not a keep"; I can give it at most only a very weak merge into Democracy. But note WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Barno 01:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Democracy. The point is interesting enough to retain, but isn't meritorious of its own article. Tobycat 06:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Bare Merge into Democracy. The article only just escapes deletion. Avalon 11:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a Democracy, thus we cannot continue this line of thought--Wikipedia_talk:Sandbox 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Vonfraginoff 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Democracy but only with a lot of clarification and cleaning up to make it more than just a simple dicdef Zaw061 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not worth merging. Dottore So 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
  • Delete per Dottore So. QuartierLatin 1968 20:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dmcdevit. Michael 04:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete—This phrase can be defined simply by negating democracy. --Tysto 21:05, 2005 August 13 (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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angry dragon (sex move)

Speedied, which I canceled because the myth, noted as such in the article, appears from a Google search outside of the Wikipedia entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Still contains nothing to fit it into wikipedia. Manik Raina 09:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This stuff is on urbandictionary already, and should stay there. Hahnchen 14:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for many reasons, one being that whatever this is, it is not a "sex move", it is a form of sexual assault. Sdedeo 01:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • leave it - For a dictionary which, in my mind, seems to have *everything*, it only makes sense to leave it. It is a term that I've heard more recently, as of late. Such as "hand job" or "anal", it's quickly becomming a term that shows up more often. Yes, it is sexual assault, but regardless, if someone mentions the term, another will want to know what it means. Wikipedia has the answer.
  • Let it be - There is no rule stating that topics on UrbanDictionary and Wikipedia must not overlap.
  • Leave it or cross reference a bunch of unusual sexual acts on one page (bigger article). It shouldn't be deleted just because of its graphic definition.
Could be covered in Sexual slang --Cheese Sandwich 02:53, 17 August 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.

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 delete. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledgepreneurs

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of not-yet-notable management terms. Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • You need to think outside the ball!
  • Delete - meaningless entry. This is perilously close to nonsense. Naturenet | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Management talk and nonsense are sometimes hard to tell apart, which keeps me from asking for speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism. ManoaChild 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable neologism, with original research. Eclipsed 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete managelogism. Buzzwordwise, that's the way the flagpole crumbles. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 8 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morno

Neologism. Cursory Google search shows that the word is likely Portuguese, but probably does not mean "a typo for moron."--Mitsukai 18:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Apparently it is a somewhat common usage on Usenet and other on-line forums to deliberately misspell "moron" this way, but that alone doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn neologism. I dispute the statement that it is a common on-line word. ManoaChild 21:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Scott Davis Talk 10:07, 13 August 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.

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 del. mikka (t) 07:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lechebnik

Not enough discussion. Listing for another five days' discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del. The word simply means "medicine book" in Slavic languages, and there is nothing specifically mythological in the word to warrant an article for a foreign word. mikka (t) 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can verify the content -- JamesTeterenko 15:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per mikka, -- DS1953 18:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 00:31, 21 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial endorsement

I'm not exactly sure how to handle this one, to be honest. I mean, the article title is valid, but there is... no article... at all. The author didn't even attempt writing anything at all. I marked it as a stub too, so others might come along to expand it. Frag 00:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: It should be speedied as "little or no content", but let's leave it for the full length to give people time to make it if they want to. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. wtf, well delete it, if people want to write something on the subject afterwards they can, but lets not give the illusion that there is an article on commercial endorsement in the meantime. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. I doubt anything was meant when it was created, other than to be a prank.--Mitsukai 01:08, 9 August 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.

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 REDIRECT to Jam sandwich. Already done. -Splash 16:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jam sandwich (slang)

Straight cut and paste of most of Jam sandwich. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 7 August 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.

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 delete. – malathion talk 06:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation (disambiguation)

Only disambiguates between a dictionary defintion and Wikipedia:Disambigtation, not needed. --Commander Keane 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. - Sikon 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Hamster Sandwich 07:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Josh Parris # 10:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not needed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Instruction creep at its finest, a bit to subtle for BJAODN. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete recursively. I bet it's some bit of WP:POINT. Barno 02:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Uhm... which point does it illustrate? - Sikon 02:31, 9 August 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corperia

neologism, non-notable: 22 distinct googles, all of which point to wikipedia or its mirrors. Don't transwiki to wiktionary. RJFJR 23:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, protologism. —Cryptic (talk) 04:33, 13 August 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.

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 keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 18:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hellomoto

Dicdef. —msh210 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Motorola. Sonic Mew | talk to me 23:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism -Soltak 23:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect to Motorola. The only people who will search for hellomoto are those who have heard the word and want to find out what the annoying advert was for. A redirect should do. Hahnchen 00:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable catchphrase, likely search term. A redirect would confusing and annoying. Kappa 02:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Hahnchen. --nixie 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect. 192.18.1.5 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Motorola. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flowerparty talk 17:04, 8 August 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.

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 KEEP. -Splash 16:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeni

Non-notable Dragon Ball Z currency. Delete. Change vote to Keep, but delete the DBZ content. A Link to the Past 21:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Socar15 21:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn or Merge to Dragon Ball Z or Anime -Soltak 23:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a suitable merge. Kappa 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a suitable keep, either. Nandesuka 02:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a Japanese word meaning "money" and should grow into history of coins in Japan. That it has anything to do with funnies should eventually become a "Zeni in popular culture" section of the article. Fg2 20:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. for Fg2's reason. -- Taku 01:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Fg2. --Fenice 08:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zeni means just money. Somewhat colloquial, old expression. It is not fictional unit of money in Manga/Anime world, but is historical unit and general name of money, especially coins. Maris stella 10:07, 9 August 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.

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 DELETE. Jinian 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rivulet

dicdef. DS 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - dicdef already in Wiktionary. Tobycat 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kushboy 21:28, August 7, 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.

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 delete. – malathion talk 07:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moron's law

Unencyclopedic if it even exists. Nrbelex (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, bad joke. Pavel Vozenilek 16:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Made up joke. Qualifies for speedy delete, I think. Tobycat 17:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, joke. --Etacar11 00:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not even notable for being funny. Delete. (The Horse 04:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Speedy delete. More info on the topic could be interesting, but as is, seems to be a waste. - grubber 12:25, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, such a thing has its place on urbandictionary, not wikipedia --SuperBleda 10:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only is it made up and not notable, its worst sin is that it's not funny. Avalon 04:33, 14 August 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.

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 No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Platitude

This is nothing more than a long, drawn-out definition for platitude StradivariusTV 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand: I would argue that many of wikipedia's articles are long, drawn-out definitions. The article does give more information than a simple dictionary definition. Moreover, there is much potential for expansion on this topic. Perhaps this should be marked as a stub. Mistercow 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The only real difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia seems to be the length of the entries. Keep. Agentsoo 13:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef. And I simply could not disagree any more with Agentsoo's comment above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I fall somewhere in between. An encyclopedia entry should be more than a long version of a dictionary entry. But this is certainly more than a dictionary definition. The first paragraph? Yes. A dictionary definition. The second? Not so much. Keep in mind also that the deletion policy states that we should delete articles that "Can never be more than a dictionary definition". Platitude certainly can. Mistercow 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, Mistercow. Where could this article possible go beyond its current state? I might be missing something here, but even if I am the article isn't worth keeping in its current state so it should be transwikied. I think the Geogre Doctrine applies here. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Care to elaborate? Agentsoo 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I still feel that the article is more than a dicdef even in its current form. I think if anything it is borderline, but what it gives in terms of example and analysis of example gives more value than just a definition would. That said, I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit, and the analysis expanded. I'd also like to see it modified to more closely reflect the actual definition of platitude (a statement of deep content which has become meaningless through overuse). Examples of further expansion: history of cultural context, influences on philosophical thought, etc. I'm not saying the article is good, but it's a start, and the topic has potential. If it doesn't get deleted, I'll perhaps do some work on it. Mistercow 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per StradivariusTV. The way to fix a long, drawn-out dicdef is to get rid of the unnecessary cruft — then what you have is a concise dicdef. The article in question is equivalent to "platitude (n.) A statement of little or no worth, usually meant to encourage or inspire. From Greek foo 'flat'." — and if you go to Wiktionary, you'll see that a similar definition (with the correct etymology) is already there! --Quuxplusone 20:12, 7 August 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.

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 15:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shobuz

Given the author's username, probable vanity. In any case, notability not established. --Alan Au 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: the same user has also posted this suspected copyvio which they then signed at the bottom and another fishy looking article though I can't find a source for the latter. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it's patent nonsense.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 13:02:31, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. --Ragib 15:57, 15 August 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.

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 merge and redirect to List of sexual slurs. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoochie

Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:NOT section 1.2.3: Wikipedia is not a slang, idiom, or usage guide. This article is a slang definition. The Literate Engineer 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Isn't that list also a violation of the same WP:NOT section? The Literate Engineer 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps move to UrbanDictionary. Oh wait, that's not part of wikimedia ^^ Mistercow 08:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect per Punkmorten below. Mistercow 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. There isn't enough information to warrant an individual page on the topic. However, I've heard this word used widely. Move it to the List of sexual slurs article. Ravenswood1969 01:45, 6 August 2005 (CST)
  • Merge and redirect to List of sexual slurs. Punkmorten 10:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
RE: The Literate Engineer's Comment - Section 1.2.3 also states the following, "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." If this aritcle were to be omitted, then it’s also plausible to delete the slang article from the wikipedia, as well as List of sexual slurs, and other slang articles such as bimbo.
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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waist shake

Neologism. (80 unique googles.) "At the end of the article, the teacher states, "Luckily, the "waist-shake" craze has died down, but if it ever pops up in the urban dictionary or Wikipedia, we'll know who to blame."... looks to be a case of WP:POINT.

  • Delete Flowerparty talk 21:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. -D. Wu 21:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, --Veemonkamiya 04:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, remove offending reference --Dibabear 18:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    Added by 84.167.207.172, 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Flowerparty talk 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia ain't paper! It doesn't harm you to keep it up.
    Added by user:ChoobWriter, 15:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC); user's 12th edit. Flowerparty talk 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm very surprised I forgot to sign it. Also I may not have done that much editing, but my account is nearly two months old so that should be noted. ChoobWriter 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Those who want to keep this item need to explain why it has any encyclopedia merit. -- Visviva 15:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, slang term. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 17 August 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.

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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long song

A "long song" is (can you guess?) a song that is (drumroll please) long!!! Next —Wahoofive (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Kind of a non-topic. Kind of subjective (more than three minutes? Where's that written? I've always thought of six minutes as the epic song), little room for expansion, beyond the anecdote that DJs used to play American Pie because it was so long, dancers could take a bathroom break without missing much. CanadianCaesar 06:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this topic is unencyclopedic as it is, it would need expansion to include an unweildy list of "long songs". Would it also include whole symphonies or movements, arias, cantatas etc. etc. Mark as unmaintainable. Hamster Sandwich 07:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable, invalid topic. Punkmorten 16:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is a category or list called "list of songs over 15 minutes" or soemthing. Jobe6 22:51, August 7, 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.

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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ttk

Delete. In first 120 entries of google I find nothing. THe page don't explain the name ttk, but the page is a raw copy (not wikified) of first part of Copycat. Ev. redirect or wikidiktionary Cate 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on chaps, deerstalkers on and get sleuthing. I am relisting this for lack of debate, and extending for another five days. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah, no evidence of this term being used that way. And it's all about copycat... --Etacar11 19:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or if someone can verify the term is really in use (I sort of doubt it), redirect. -- Egil 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing useful here. Proto t c 22:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the kind of material that deletion was meant for. -- Visviva 06:29, 17 August 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.


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 Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tummy_sticks

dicdef 128.112.24.137 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

By my standing rule, this gets another five days discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge to Wedding Crashers, though I wouldn't oppose deletion either. Just one neologism out of a recent film is unlikely to be expanded to a full article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tony, you are wasting my and everybody's time. This is a clear candidate for deletion. Nobody voted keep, not even the author, who is presumably long gone. Sdedeo 09:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry Tony, that came out kind of harsh. Long day. Sdedeo 13:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem with your comment, but I'm not deleting an article that only has two valid delete votes. I don't count the nominator because he's on an IP and with an edit history that only goes back to August 1. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Anonymous votes should only be discounted if bad faith can be proved. You should know that, Tony. Assume good faith. Proto t c 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • To discount anon votes is ok. To discount an anon nomination is not ok. This had consensus to delete. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and this kind of relisting makes it into one. If you're not happy with the outcome of a VfD, don't close it. -Splash 02:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In the interests of allowing the discussion to continue, sheep-keep --Simon Cursitor 11:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. android79 12:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per retarded. JDoorjam 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the best efforts of some of our editors, this is still an encyclopedia.--Scimitar parley 20:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Proto t c 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Not much more than a dicdef. It might gain popularity, but could easily be recreated at that time. ManoaChild 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Nandesuka 23:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. And Tony should stop wasting people's time. --Calton | Talk 01:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete has had a valid prior VfD that should have been closed as delete. -Splash 02:17, 13 August 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Words_Closed_95cc.html"