Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HOFUS

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. Mo0[talk] 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOFUS

I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as nonsense. Unsourced, I can't find any relavent Google results. At best, it's an over-done dictionary definition of a new word (as the response seems to claim). At worst, it's a general attack page. Note that I copied the creator's talk page response below. I stand by speedy delete. _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Response from Talk:HOFUS: "To all the hardworking Wikipedia staff who are so discriminately judging this page after a mere three minutes of its existence, please be informed that this page certainly does not discuss meaningless nonsense. The HOFUS is a rapidly-spreading term used to describe a kind of classroom problem throughout the United States as well as possibly other nations. This article gives its reader a detailed description of the HOFUS, as well as select methods with which one may rid oneself of its presence. By not reading this article, certain unfortunate individuals may not have the opportunity to learn about and rid themselves of one of the primary reasons they fear the arrival of the school bus each morning. One such encounter has happened to us, and we would regret missing the opportunity to alert the world to the presence of this nuicance. Please consider the value of this article more carefully.

After looking over your criteria for patent nonsense(ie: Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like "1`- 5bl[9 1vn]304 0=10am[0v9a1 7", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever), it is obvious that we do not fulfill these standards at all. First of all, our writing is a completely, fully-constructed work that an intelligent human being can comprehend. Included in this article, you will find no random strings of random letters and numbers punched into the keyboard. Secondly, as we have stated in our discussion topic, the information clearly illustrates an inherent problem and is in no way confused, discombobulated, or written in an unintelligible manner. Although words such as HOFUS may seem strange at first, once you begin to accept different ideas, a piece of information that seems useless may soon become a masterpiece. A word such as fnord, for example, may at first seem like complete garbage, but your article about that term has shown there is a great well of knowledge to be found in that uncommon word (see wikipedia article on fnord). Please consider this as you edit and reconsider your descision to delete our article."

• Strong delete: "The HOFUS is a rapidly-spreading term used to describe a kind of classroom problem throughout the United States as well as possibly other nations." So, therefore, require editor to write a hundred times on the blackboard, "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." Daniel Case 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Daniel. Bobby1011 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per likely WP:NFT or, at best, non-notable neologism. A search finds nothing which supports this usage. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Could have been speedied. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete --Hetar 06:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speedily as possible. Neologism, WP:NOT a how-to, WP:NFT, all that good medicine for bad articles. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry kids WP:NFT -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as above ComputerJoe 12:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NFT. To who the creator is, go and create a blog or website to write this kind of stuff. --Terence Ong 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per aeropagitica. Fan1967 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Smith120bh and aeropagitica Schizombie 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice, a great speedy delete, in my mind. JGorton 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Neologism, NOT made up words in school. Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 26 February 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.