Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil laugh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evil laugh
- Evil laugh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Mwahahahaha was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-14. The result of the discussion was "keep after rename to evil laugh". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwahahahaha.
This article has no substance outside of original research and opinions. I personally like it, but it is not appropriate to Wikipedia Slavlin 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR. —The Great Llamamoo? 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. An evil laugh is an evil laugh. RampageouS 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. At first I was skeptical, but the article is quite good and a nice corollary to Evil genius (and an evil genius is an evil genius). All of the arguments in support of an "Evil genius" article (i.e. its importance as a cultural meme) apply to this article too. Allon Fambrizzi 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- Comment. An evil genius isn't necessarily an "evil genius", but an evil laugh is necessarily an "evil laugh." RampageouS 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- And the Geography of France is the geography of France. This is has nothing to do with whether an article should be kept or deleted. See our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for what you should be basing arguments upon. Uncle G 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Response. If you read the articles "evil" and "laugh", you will know exactly what an evil laugh is, in the same way that if you read the pages "blue" and "car", you will know exactly what a blue car is. Note that there is no "blue car" article. If you read the pages "geography", "of", and "France", you will know fairly little about the geography of France, making the "Geography of France" article necessary. Wikipedia must have a policy about superfluous articles, right? RampageouS 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- And the Geography of France is the geography of France. This is has nothing to do with whether an article should be kept or deleted. See our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for what you should be basing arguments upon. Uncle G 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If you look at Evil genius you will notice that the page is in the process of revision right now. If support cannot be provided for definition and clarification outside of Original Research, I will be nominating it for deletion as well. Existence as an internet meme does not mean that it should be in Wikipedia. We must reference sources for it and only include information which is not produced, even by synthesis, on Wikipedia.
- Comment. An evil genius isn't necessarily an "evil genius", but an evil laugh is necessarily an "evil laugh." RampageouS 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this was nominated before, and kept by consensus. Nothing changed since then that would make the article deletable. Grue 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The keep was actually a move. The article was not reviewed for deletion based on the criteria that it is Original Research. Can you show any way that this actually is not original research? Slavlin 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Various transcriptions of evil laughs can be sourced from page 23 of ISBN 0811846660, here, and other places. There is a discussion of some evil laughter on pages 13 and 14 of ISBN 0826513069, and discussion of what "menacing, evil, or maniacal" laughter sounds like on page 99 of ISBN 0936941057. As for who has an evil laugh, this author states that Dr Evil has an evil laugh, but Bond villains do not. Uncle G 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The keep was actually a move. The article was not reviewed for deletion based on the criteria that it is Original Research. Can you show any way that this actually is not original research? Slavlin 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — A suitable article on a common media cliché. I think it's entirely appropriate for wikipedia. Mwahahahaha... — RJH (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment what would this be documented by though? It is not verifiable without references. Slavlin 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. How hard can it possibly be to document the "evil laugh" as a stereotype of the villain? bd2412 T 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. What is the encyclopedic value of this? At the very least, there should not be that "pop culture" section. A list of character who have performed an "evil laugh" at infinitum with no set limit would have to be its own article if anything. Without that, the article is just uncited original research with, like, one external link to a sound file. (oh the misused bandwidth.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known concept. And plus, evil genius is just as fine as evil laugh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2006 (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.
