Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awag

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. I trust I don't need to explicate upon my close here. -Splash^talk 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awag

Delete. — Article fails WP:WWIN in that the subject matter is not important. In other words the subject matter in unencyclopedic. It has no notoriety or other reason to be included in an encyclopedia. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

• Delete per nom. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I would argue that to several hundred people, if not thousands (let's include the lurkers), that the subject matter is important. That the signee has not heard of the subject should not be used as reason alone for deletion. I am sure if i searched through the wiki files I would find plenty of entries that I considered to be unimportant. As I stated last night when asking for the page to not be deleted, similar entries for other websites are included. As for having no notoriety, again that is a subjective viewpoint of the signee and surely cases should be reviewed on an objective not subjective issue. The entry will make more sense when it is completed, but I say again, to thousands of people the entry will be relevant. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Sitheroo's only contributions are to the article (as author) and to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Savidan 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Put it in a dictionary if you can convince someone it is a real word. Weregerbil 09:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Wiktionary Definition of the word is dictionary material, "history" section is nonsense. Weregerbil 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• The word has been used several times in the British media, 2 examples are
  • http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1534268,00.html - 42nd over
  • http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandinpakistan/story/0,16791,1671899,00.html - 36/38/42nd over
    
• It has also appeared in three books 'Is it cowardly to pray for rain', 'She Stood There Laughing' & 'The Book of football lists'. Has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1. Hold on, I'll be back with more in a bit. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in parts of Britain and in certain media. Deadlock 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Relevant to many followers of lower league Professional football. Dantl 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Dantl's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. those who would deny wikipeeja of an entry for awag should look at themselves in the mirror and comb their hair. it has brought entertainment to people from all four corners of the world; england, sweden, the caribbean and stoke-on-trent. folk should not dismiss something they do not understand, i mean, 3-2-1 used to be a popular saturday night telly. awag must be represented wa la bingo bango. Denby 10:44am, 2 feb 2006
  • Note: User:Denby's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oi weregerbil. It's a social commentary on an internet phenomena and hence clearly not nonsense. It needs tidying up and making more readable but is still valid on the encyclodepic side of the site. Sitheroo 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Savidan, your entry interests me. What relevance in the wider scheme of things do the rules to a drinking game known by an few people at an educational establishment have? Sitheroo 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. The history is as relevant as the definition. To disregard and ignore recorded and factual events is a threat to democracy and smacks of communism.jerichoharris
  • Note: User:jerichoharris's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. I second Sith's emotion (except I have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with Savidan and the word "entry"). It is certainly more relevant than some esoteric mating ritual practised by a bunch of idiots in green jumpers with letters on them who attend some American establishment no doubt famous for its practise of unbridled Man-Love and named after a rather shabby British Dockyard. In short, keep it, or I'll ram you up your own fudge-tunnels. Bernoulli
  • Note: user:Bernoulli has zero contribs, this edit was made by unsigned user:192.16.134.66. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• OUTRAGE. Nazism too. Keep the knarly thing IN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.5.114 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as nonsense. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Some of the material that appears on awag may be contentious, but it is subvesive and invetive: it is this very FACTAMUNDO (overlooked by the main page author incidentally) that is the ESSENCE of AWAG: it forms a continuum of a deeply embedded strand of British SATIRE c/f 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' and 'The Office.'
  • Note: User:Johnnyneptune's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We all have to join at some point though Zunaid. I think your comment is a little harsh, I fully intend to contribute in other ways to the life of wikipedia from here on in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyneptune (talk • contribs)
• Reply: That note is merely to inform the closing admin. New users' opinions are not given the same weight as users who have long contribution histories. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hello. I've cleared the unhelpful entries off. My intellect alone will be enough to convince you that Awag should be allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the Wikipedia community. I am, however, busy at work, so if you could hold on til tomorrow night when I've got some time to argue it's case properly I'd be wholly grateful. Hugs and stuff Sitheroo 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: please do no delete other people's entries no matter how unhelpful they may be. You also removed my delete vote in doing so. This kind of thing is frowned upon. I've restored all the comments to their prior state. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Having been familiar with the word awag for several years I am surprised that this is a relatively new entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.10.221 (talk • contribs)
• keep i am not a puppet of the sock or meat variety. this is the first time ever that i've had an opinion on anything and i want to express it. no i had another opinion once, i don't like beards. Denby 13:53, 2 february 2006 (utc)
• I got the term onto radio 1, of course it's important. there are probably millions upon millions of people out there wondering what on earth I meant, and now they come to Wikipedia and find out. Wa la bingo bango- brilliant. MHG
  • Note: User:MHG has zero edits. this edit was made by unsigned user:82.7.20.231 Zunaid 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep awag is a well-known old English word. Did not Alfred The Great once say "look out lads, it's the vikings - and they're going awag in a very bad way"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.187.197 (talk • contribs)
• keep Just in case anybody is paranoid enought to think that I might be Andy in disguise I'm not. Plus I'm married to an American an everything. Doesn't this give me some kind of extra influence? I've applied for my green card and everything. Jerichoharris 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Right, I'm back with a proper user name which will hopefully take the edge off the more anal contributor's attitudes. I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of many subjects I will be more than happy to contribute to one I discover the nature of the beast we're humping here. I reiterate that if "Dartmouth Pong" or some water park which caters to people who weigh as much as a small family car are regarded as suitable for inclusion then it would be scandalous not to extend the same courtesy to Awag. ElBerno
  • Note: User:ElBerno has zero edits. this edit was made by unsigned user:192.16.134.66 Zunaid 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep A definition for nonsense as given on wikipedia. "Much madness is divinest sense to the discerning eye. Given that Zunaid is ingorant of the term AWAG, it's usage and importance in Modern Britain, it is little wonder he has described it as such and says much about his own powers of discernment. Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky is afforded room here and AWAG makes a lot more sense that it does.Jerichoharris 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I haven't read the article but anything supported by so many sock puppets has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at all the people you've nominated for admin positions I don't see how you can be casting sock puppetry aspersions at anybody.Jerichoharris 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Subject matter is referenced in several different media. As linked above - Three books? I suspect there's more. Relative obscurity does not automatically equal unencyclopedic - It certainly seems more worthy than some. Dartmouth pong? behave yourselves. I'm not a bleeding sock puppet, just quite affronted by some of the self-important bilge spewed by lorry-sized patronising yanks. Pear 15:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep People who recommend articles they haven't read for deletion really should just fuck right off. Expecially if they are in their 20s and still play with Transformers, you daft perkele tosspot ElBerno
• Delete. Re: Dartmouth pong. There is a difference between a game that's been popular for decades among a notable community (Dartmouth is generally considered one of the ten most prestigious universities in America, not that that matters) and a typographical error/inside joke that is relevant to a handful of soccer fans. StarryEyes 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Whether a community is 'notable' is entirely subjective. Awag as a concept has been atround for several years, and is well referenced - 'handful' is your just perception - it is utterly incorrect. And it's football, thanks. Pear 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Whether a community is notable or not is subjective, but degrees of notability are very concrete. I'd take a world-renowned university over a few soccer fans any day of the week, thanks. StarryEyes 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ah, perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to your notability-o-meter? Again, there are considerably more than a few football fans out there to whom "Awag" means something. It means more to me than a university named after a stinking dock ever will. But I suspect I'll never reach the necessary levels of self-obsessed patronising bleating required to become 'established' enough on here to count for anything. Woe is me Pear 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to try Google. "Dartmouth College" (including the quotes, thus excluding many relevant results, considering it is universally known as simply "Dartmouth" by all Americans) has 11,400,000 results. awag football (excluding quotes, thus including many irrelevant results) has a whopping 567. Anyway, don't make it out like I'm a Dartmouth-phile or anything. They rejected me, in fact. StarryEyes 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Just had a look on GOOGLE, starryeyes is telling porkies. AWAG gets over 11,000 references. "Dartmouth Pong" got 208. Liar liar pants on fire................The comparison was between Dartmouth Pong and AWAG not Dartmouth and AWAG football. Cuntwipe.

For a start, it's not soccer. Secondly, I believe that the point has been made above as to why the "awag" entry should be kept. Reasons have been given such as it's appearance in books, newspapers and national radio. However this appears to be a dictatorship, and we are not being listened too because "zunaid" has too much time on his/her hands. The reason so many "sock puppets" have come on here, as you seem so keen to keep pointing out, is because of the popularity of the entry of awag, and our utter disbelief that you cannot see it's value. MHG

• i occasionally wear shoes on my hands, does that make me a shoepuppet? Denby 16:16, 2 february 2006 (utc)

What MHG said, again I am not a sockpuppet but another person who has taken the time and effort to create an account in order that this unbelievably inane discussion comes to an end. To dismiss something so readily just beacuase you are unaware of it is staggering. AWAG is important to many many people and rightly deserves its place in history CaRtEr

• Starryeyes, I find it fascinating that somebody who regards British music as so important can be so ignorant of the culture from which it grew. If you told Joe Strummer it was "soccer", and that Dartmouth College graduates were of greater worth than "soccer fans" he quite rightly call you a wanker.Jerichoharris 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This whole debate is rather silly! I do hold a reverence for British music, like many Americans do, but my respect for British culture does not extend to typographical errors, nor should it! StarryEyes 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Let's say for comparison there was a very popular drinking game at Oxford with traceable lineage and so forth. Let's also say that there was an inside joke among a handful of American baseball fans stemming ultimately from a typographical error. Which would you say is more worthy of inclusion?)

FOOL. They both need inclusion. You are just sounding like a snob now. Oh, and by the way, this was un unsigned entry by a non-voting intruder blah blah blah. I never realised how pompous this wikipedia thing was. You might as well forget it and read a paper encyclopedia if you are not going to be inclusive.

• The argument is "silly" because of your ignorance. You are ignorant of what AWAG is, or means, and of it's place in British culture. Given this level of ignorance how can you possibly be in a postition to judge whether or not it should be given a place in what professes to be a informative on-line encyclopedia.Jerichoharris 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OH GOD THE MEATPUPPETS THEY BURN. Doesn't seem to be notable, is definitely badly written, verifiability seems wanting (although I came across a website which uses the term...well, let's just say it doesn't verify a damned thing). So, yeah, delete. Lord Bob 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• AWAG is not just a community, it's a way of life, a way of escaping boredom at work and at home with like minded people, It is also a perfect vehicle to co-ordinate social occasions across the country....sorry YOOKAY!, the football element contributes only a small percentage to that which is AWAG. Maybe you narrow minded fuckwits can't get your head around people who can actually manage their own lives and make their own decisions and generate their own community without having their heads up their own self important arses. But then again we do have history culture and breeding.

And YES! This is my 1st contribution..........Michelotti

• Delete. I read this three times, and I still can't understand what it's talking about. -Colin Kimbrell 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I read Einstein's general theory of relativity three times, and couldn't understand what that was about. The difference was that I wasn't arrogant enough to decide that made it valueless....

Comment:Please see WP:PN.-Colin Kimbrell 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as slang def and for ridiculous sock/meat-puppetry. And to the poor admin who has to wade through all this upon closing, you have my condolences. bikeable (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• According to your own daft encyclopaedia, "The Meat Puppets" are a punk band. Why do you keep referring to people as though they were members of this band? Also how can the band be worthy of inclusion but its apparent members (of which there seem to be many) are not? dan 18:20, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:217.37.187.197 bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

...almost funny. I am very familiar with the Meat Puppets, thank you. Please read WP:SOCK, and realize that the comments of people who are new to wikipedia and arrive just to "vote" on this AfD are not likely to count for much. bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I read it. The last paragraph reads "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." but I've not seen much civility from the delete brigade. All I see is name-calling, abuse and ridiculous censorship. Real friendly.dan 21:14, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:84.9.208.158. bikeable (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article" - I'd say arbitrarily declaring Delete as you have rather shows your hypocritical bent there old son.

• Strong delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Delete as a slang dictionary definition with a history of negligible notability and questionable verifiability. Mix in enough meat puppets to get a rousing chorus of "Lake of Fire" going and I'd say this article needs to go.--Isotope23 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete! What is going on here? All this over another spelling of "away"? Very non-notable!! Grandmasterka 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Soccer's a British word too you know, you silly gits. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Edgar181 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost the only coherent part of the article stated it was a "Nonsense word". We have an incoherent article about a nonsense word.

Capitalistroadster 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and DeleteI can't believe that a bunch of webspazzes are debating wether a reference to another bunch of webspazzes should be included in an encyclopedia that will only be read by other webspazzes - put the Kleenex away, open the curtains, squeeze some zits and go outside. Webspaz
• Comment I find the use of the word spaz highly objectionable.

If some cunt's (and a cunt in his TWENTIES at that) entry about "Transformer Fest 2004" makes the cut I REALLY don't see what you're moaning about. I'll bet good old English pounds to your vicously devalued American dollar that twenty years down the line (assuming the inevitableresource/race-wars haven't destroyed the internet/western society by then) that there will be more Awaggers than "Botcon" attendees, if only because a significant proportion of our lot have had sex with something other than our own hands and are likely to actually have some progeny. "Botcon" is a ridiculoous word, for fuck's sake - it sounds like a festival of anal adventure. AWAG is at least as "real" at least as "meaningful" and a milion times more significant than some bleach-faced Finnish Nazi sympathisers getting together with like-minded potential serial killers to spray their salty jizz over who has Galvatron in the most original original packaging. Get a grip you suppurating CUNTSTACKS!. Bernie XX

• • Doesn't change my vote, but damn that is one of the funniest things I've read today.--Isotope23 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone looking for references, please feel free to use the enclosed google link from October 2001. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.sport.soccer/browse_thread/thread/ffe80a53152319f6/cfab3b3338892f9c?lnk=st&q=valiantitus&rnum=1#cfab3b3338892f9c

• Delete, and if ever there was an argument for semi-protecting AFD pages, this is it. Hell, I would have speedied this crap. -R. fiend 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: I only hope it is a valuable contribution to transatlantic peace if it is mentioned that in a forthcoming book on 'Football' which will be published by UK publishers Canongate in May 2006 [1] both awag and wikipedia appear in the acknowledgements page.

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. We can't include a citation in a work that hasn't been published yet. -Colin Kimbrell 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as: vanity, neologism, patent nonsense, and just plain bollocks. Take it to Uncyclopedia, please, but I'm not sure if they'll even put up with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete awag and Transformer Fest 2004, too. Deli nk 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, for the myriad of reasons listed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - term is on Wiktionary, this article is nonsense. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 05:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as near patent nonsense. And please discount all of the "keep" votes. None of them are actually real. Cyde Weys 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was going to write a right good polemic on why this should stay on the webiste but having come in this morning and read the sanctimonious whiny shit above I've changed my mind. Good grief. Rightio That you self-important arbiters of what should be on this website appoint yourselves on time served on website rather than experience or qualifications shows what an arrogant up your own arse bunch of cunts you americans are. This is cultural imperialism of the highest order. Relevance? I could care less that a bunch of webtards who live in their mother's basements fantasizing about shooting their school friends with their dads AK47 collection do not find an ENGLISH website (a very popular one, 1000000 hits a month at the height of it's popularity) relevant. I assume, rightly I imagine, that you have all written off to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and asked for all the bits you don't care about to be removed? Here's the news: AWAG, to many many Britons is as relevant and important as things you care about but we have never heard of are to you. Boo hoo you haven't heard of it. It's a comedic website, it doesn't profess to be anything more and as such it deserves to be kept on this encyclopedia (from the greek meaning 'encyclo' - everything' and 'pedia - fiddler of small children' - and quite right too, that is pretty much what you all are). SO hey ho, you small band of keepers of the truth don't want us to play. Never mind. We'll have as much fun searching the site and finding non-relevant and non-important entries as we would having the pleasure of seeing this entry accepted into the fold.

America uber alles eh? God bless George Bush and his beacon of truth democracy and justice.

Oh and as for it being badly written., THAT WAS THE POINT. IT'S COMEDY YOU CLUELESS BUNCH OF WEBSPAZ ANGLEPOISE CUNTLAMPS Sitheroo

• bit harsh on mr bush there sith, it's hardly his fault that this place is populated by puffed-up self-important pasty-faced webtard inveterate mini-napoleons overcompensating for their lack of influence in the real world.

Anyway, back to the important stuff, I thought encyclopedia was those special bike pedals with the straps on. ElBooca 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP TELLING ME I CAN'T EDIT MY OWN FUCKING POSTS FOR FUCKS SAKE. Sitheroo

Keep. The justification for the Transformerfest being kept is lots of hits. AWAG had 110,000 hits in one day. That should of* justified it I'd guess. Just remember, sitting at your computer for 15 hours in a day playing God over subjects you don't know anything about doesn't make you Bill Gates.

Indeed, it barely makes you Eric Gates ElBooca 10:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep As an American working in Europe I am frankly dismayed by the attitude of both sides to this discussion, sadly especially my compatriots. Having moved to Munich in 1997 to work for my existing company I have had to put up with anti-american attitudes in all walks of life. Living in Germany this has become particularily hard in the last few years following the intervention in the Middle East situation. In my capacity as a member of AWAG [[2]] I constantly strive to improve relationships with our European Counterparts. Living in Europe has taught me to welcome the diversity of nations, to compare a German to a Frenchman is like comparing an Alaskan with a Mexican Immigrant, one simply can't.

I have a duty to promote AWAG in Europe both through social convertion and the internet, and have come across the alternative British meaning of the acronym on many occasions. While often typically British in attitude, one cannot doubt the growth in use of both the term and the relevance in their part of the world.

As mentioned before, I am saddened to see such dispute over this subject, Wikipedia is growing in reputation in all parts of Europe but particularily the United Kingdom I read, such actions sadly hinder this

Sincerely Yours

Ruth Weinberg

• Delete egads... --W.marsh 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the quantity of votes and comments here seems to have negated the non-notability alleged in the nomination. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to criticize, really, but this is the first time I've ever seen "keep because of sockpuppets" used. Lord Bob 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No criticism taken nor intended, but is there any proof that these are sockpuppets? I will assume good faith until proven otherwise (which you may well do). Carlossuarez46 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sockpuppets was the wrong term on my part. I should have used meatpuppets, and the evidence is that a large number of anonymous users or newly registered users with no edit histories to speak of are speaking up in favour of this article. This is not usual practice for a deletion and indicates that somebody is trying to round up support. Lord Bob 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. The nom. for deletion was based on non-notability (phrased as non-notoriety). Meatpuppet & Sockpuppet votes will be discounted or disregarded, however it does seem to show that there is some minimal notability (notoriety?) on the subject. We have a fairly low threshold for notability (nearly every murderer or executed murder at least is considered notable enough, as are semi-deities in any number of sci-fi genres, and on and on). Years from now (encyclopedically speaking) these non-notables will not be remembered, but that doesn't preclude their appearance here. If we want to up the threshhold of notability (like we have done with music), I'd be all for it IFF we apply it consistently. In any event, at least I spurred some discussion. You'll note that generally my votes on AfD's are not anti-majoritarian although sometimes I state that I didn't necessarily agree with the rationale. If I end up as a minority of one, I think I can take it. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - While there maybe some actually genuine and useful content buried somewhere in the article, the shear amount of irrelevancy, filler and intentional piss-taking, leads me to conclude the loss of any potentially genuine content is preferable to the reputation damage done by having such an atrocious article sitting in WikiP, and the loss of time necessary to bring it up to a minimum standard. I'm all for people posting 'full' articles when they can, instead of just stubs, but for f**ks sake! Send it to Uncyclopedia! --Myfanwy 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's been massively pared down, all the bits no-one understnads taken out and just the facts. oh baby. is it ok now? :) Sitheroo 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Better, but probably still not good enough for me to change my vote. There's no independent verification of the website's traffic claim, which seems to be the main claim to notability, and in one of the two newspaper references cited earlier, the main body of the reference is the sportswriter admitting that he's never heard the term and doesn't know what it means [3]. We need more verifiable, independent information about awag/awagging to demonstrate widespread usage. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why? Do people keeep insisting that many of the contributions on here are by 'sockpuppets'? What is to say that the people that say 'Delete' are not merely sockpuppets of the nominator?

Most of the people saying 'Delete' in this article have a well-established presence and edit history on this encyclopedia. (You can use this tool to check edit counts automatically, if you'd like.) It isn't practical to believe that the nominator would meticulously construct a 500+ post edit history for all of these people simply to abuse AFD process. Meanwhile, a lot of the people saying 'Keep' have only a dozen or so edits, almost all of which are to Awag or to this AFD discussion. It doesn't mean that they definitely are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but it's certainly suspicious. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They're real people. I could always publish their mobile numbers on here...

• Delete. I have no words. The current version is even worse than when it was nominated. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"I have no words". What are you thick or something?

I'd guess the 400 inhabitants of Libišany would have words about Pavel's entry about them.

Comment on this delete discussion I am still new to Wikipedia, however I have noticed a few things in this discussion and while looking around the place. Some of the administrators comments on this are rather poorly worded however there have been well voiced comments such as those of Colin Kimbell.

To be honest I get the feeling that most of the comments by the more experienced users are said without even reading the article, they call this jumping on the bandwaggon. There may be many reasons for this but I think that at least some of this is point chasing, from what I read some of the more childish users believe that the more edits one makes, the more important one is. They even have a list of most edits [[4]]

As a new user it is not my place to say that this is stupid but I have to say it comes across this way.

Regards

Ruth Weinberg

I must say that this episode has been an eye-opener for me.

I have, of course, heard of the concept of Wikipedia before, but this is the first time I have ever bothered to look in to it - that was as a result of being part of the Awag community.

My first thought about Wikipedia was that it was a foolish premise which was doomed to failure. Why would the entries in it be regarded as reliable, if they were penned by people with no authority, and freely open to vandalism by anyone (anonymously at that)?

The project does have virtues, of course, and the key one, apart from not having to pay people to insert and edit articles, would have to be inclusivity and scope. Here was the possibility to have an encyclopedia so comprehensive that no other could possibly compete. Even the most obscure facts could be embraced at no cost, apart from a few kilobytes of disk space.

However, this virtue seems to be being thrown away remarkably cheaply.

There are many valid reasons that could be put forward for removing Andy's Awag entry. It is not written in a journalistic style, and the origins and history of both the word and the community are not made clear enough. However, these things could be tidied up. It is true that to verify that Awag exists, and the facts about it are true is not easy, because of the sparsity of other web sites referencing Awag. In this case, we could have relied on the hundreds of other members of the Awag community to edit and correct the entry (apparently the whole idea of Wiki).

However, suggesting that entries should be excluded because they are "not famous enough" is not only an unwise criterion, it is also clearly being applied in an idiosyncratic and irrational way by an cliquey oligarchy of narcisstic bullies, seemingly drunk in their own solipsistic view of the World.

As an example, I noticed that a recently-deleted randomly-chosen article (which I have not had the opportunity to read) was called "Mesh computers". One reason put forward for the deletion was "I've lived in Britain for ten years now and never saw one single box manufactured by those people anywhere". I don't know what that signifies, but we have two in the family and at least two of my work colleagues also have one - so they do exist! Another comment: "links from the vanilla Google search are mostly just product reviews and thus do not indicate notability". There are, in fact, "about 64,000" matches for "Mesh Computers" in vanilla Google. How many do you need to be included?

The next deleted article after that was "Engineering Week - University of Alberta". Maybe not the most important subject in the World, it appears nevertheless to be earnestly and carefully written by someone who though it was worthy of inclusion, and there may be dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people who might have read it with interest. The author may have become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but I doubt he/she will ever bother with it again after the vitriolic and utterly inapproriate bile seen in the deletion page, e.g. "vanity", "Does anybody outside the Uni of Alberta give a shit", "boring", "dime-a-dozen University event", etc. These comments are spiteful, unnecessary and are simply a case of shooting onesself in the foot, by alienating people.

I note that one of the aims of Wikipedia,as stated by its founder, is to achieve the same quality as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or better(!). Frankly, this aim is so laughable as to be embarrassing. Tragically, Wikipedia is also failing miserably to play to its strengths of immediacy and inclusivity.

Personally, I doubt I will be bothering to access Wikipedia again, either as a contibutor or as a reader. If I want reliability, I can use Britannica. Wikipedia doesn't offer anything of value to me. In fact, to be honest, Awag is more valuable.

joncBEE.

Ruth, please allow me to say that you are a shining beacon of sense in what other wise amounts to a dogshit-filled dark corner of a park of mental mayhem. I feel I should apologise for the US-phobic comments of some people here who appear to be doing their best to exhibit what they perceive to be the major drawbacks of the US i.e. a parochial, judgemental, cartoon picture of other lands. As I watch hour after our of news footage of people screaming "Allah Kebab Fallaffel!" and burning down the wrong embassies I feel it is my duty to extend an understanding hand of internationalist pragmatism to try to bring disparate, mutually suspicious groups of people together and elimante the suspicion and rancour over tiny issues which divides us. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to expelling a different, semi-liquid issue I have into an old sock, whilst concentrating on a digitised picture of (a pre-cancerous) Kylie Minogue.

As for the self-righteous Wiki-Napoleons, to quote Mr Reggie Noble; fuck all y'all. I expect Ruth has decomposing lint jammed under her big toe with infinitely more clue of what this Wiki-business is all about than you tossers. Read, mark and learn John BCEE'äs entry with as much attention as you would pay a UNIX manual or a 24 hour Transformer marathon. ONly then can you save yourselves FROM yourselves.

ElBerno XX

• Many of the people on here who consider a lack of notability as a valid reason for deletion do so because they feel that it is a logical extension of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Some others feel that it's not possible to document a truly obscure thing without violating WP:VAIN/WP:NPOV, since the contributor wouldn't have heard about the obscure topic without direct personal involvement. It's still a matter of much debate, though. -Colin Kimbrell 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Two other things:

1. Please don't provide personal information for any user (other than yourself, if you're so inclined), be it names or phone numbers or addresses. It's generally considered very bad form to do so, as people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when contributing here, if that is what they desire. -Colin Kimbrell 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. The various "lists of wikipedians by edits" do also serve some useful purposes, such as helping to identify users who might benefit from additional responsibilities (as in WP:RFA nominations). -Colin Kimbrell 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just making a point Colin - it seems the 'regular' users feel the people involved here are not real.

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.