Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather weenie

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 of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather weenie

Delete. At best, nn forumcruft, at worst, complete nonsense. MCB 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Flapdragon 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 04:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN - is much funnier than some entries moved there - KillerChihuahua 11:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. PJM 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neogolism concerning non-notable subject, with a good deal of nonsense to boot. TheMadBaron 16:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Fix Obviously needs cleanup, but notable, though small based subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search returns 764 hits. This is a somewhat popular neologism that is accepted among more than just a few forums. However, the article seems to pertain to a specific internet forum, so its content should be overwritten. The emergence of this term is probably related to the increased interest in weather among the general American population due to the severity of the 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons. --TantalumTelluride 21:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Even as a mildly popular neologism, the article could not reasonably be more than a short dicdef, which belongs in Wiktionary rather than here. If that were the article's content, I'd vote transwiki, but since it isn't, there's no point in editing it to that level and then transwiki-ing it. MCB 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs major cleanup but why not keep it? It is a topic of conversation and part of the new 21st Century vernacular among those in the Scientific Community.
  • Delete neologism, and someone keeps trying to use this as a message board (and removing the AFD tag, to boot). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone wants to re-write this, then okay. But, as is, this article is nonsense. ---Aude 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism and forumcruft. Andrew Levine 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN or transwiki to uncyclopedia ;) TastemyHouse 14:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a neologism it's no more than the sum of its parts. Wikipedia ain't a repository for netlore lists. Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. Not even funny. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please consider rewriting this article and keeping it. I have been a member of the forum Eastern US Weather for over a year. This group of netizens is a unique phenomenon that I believe should be included as a neologistic people-group phenomenon. I believe the article in question can be re-written and retained in Wikipedia or at least retained in one of your other wikipedian branches, such as the Wiktionary or in one of the other Wikis. Please consider my proposal. Jeb
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.