Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farditmitts

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 as complete bollocks. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:03, Dec. 26, 2005

[edit] Farditmitts

Seems like non-sense Computerjoe 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well that's nice and open-minded of you Joe, by that reasoning you should trundle off to the Christianity, Scientology and Santa Claus pages and have a go at putting them up for deletion as well. I'm sure people affiliated with those concepts won't be offended at being labelled 'non-sense' either. ZeRo 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and you, sir, are beating a strawman while pulling the "Respect my beliefs!" card at the same time. Neither is working very well. --Agamemnon2 07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotion, see www.farditmitts.com where it says: I just read an article on the BBC that says that wikipedia, the open source online encyclopedia, is as good as the encyclopedia Brittanica. And since it has always been an ambition of mine to get farditmitts recognised as an official word I thought what a better place to start than to get it listed in the worlds biggest freakin encyclopedia? -feydey 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Explain Please. What is the matter with you people? Your like evil librarians on speed... What exactly is so wrong with the above exerpt that would deem this entry worthy of promotion for deletion? ZeRo 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Only Google hits for the term are the creator's website. Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Durova 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being complete vanity and nonsense. --Apostrophe 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Fair Enough so if I can gather a group of people together who can verify the existance of farditmitts, confirm their use of farditmitts on a daily basis and show their support for a wikipedia entry on the subject everything will be o.k? By the way is this actually a 'discussion' or just a virtual pitstop for power tripping, stuck-up, kill-joys? I mean does anyone actually ever come back to defend their comments once they have made them?
• vanity? and nonsense... Nonsense, yes, nonsense in a way is the definition of the word farditmitts. But if you want to delete something because it's definition is nonsense you'd better go and delete this one as well: Nonsense. As for vanity, I don't know wot you mean by that and if your going to be as 'responsive' as the other people that have posted so far, I guess I never will. ZeRo 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Dicdef doesn't belong in Wikipedia. A concept or term should have an impact outside of it's adherents or at least have a large number of such adherents. DeathThoreau 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment That strategy wouldn't work because it's too easy to fake, even if the subject were encyclopedic. If you wrote a book that sold over 5000 copies or did something that got national news coverage, that would be different. Durova 18:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the site says: "Joining FarditMitts is free, easy, fun and pointless". As was creating its article on WP. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Not once did I mention or promote farditmitts.com, infact I would incourage you not to go there.

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Looks like an attempt at a joke but they forgot to put any funny in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:39, 16 December 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.