Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki-fiddler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2004 neologism with about 42 web hits (+2 for wikifiddler), some unrelated and the rest apparently all from just one author's posts to The Register. External links could possibly be merged to Criticism of Wikipedia. Samaritan 16:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Register's influence is likely to ensure this slur becomes widely used by critics. (I was aware of it — and amused by it — long before I signed up here.) It seems to me that the best way to defuse this would be for it to become common usage amongst those against whom it is targeted. (I want it on a t-shirt!) In any case, its deliberate exclusion from wikipedia's extensive lists of such terms would seem odd. --JEREMY 16:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since 2004, it hasn't - has it even been used by other authors at The Register? And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You're arguing to include it for pro-Wikipedia POV advocacy purposes, which doesn't sit right, and... how many other little-used anti-Wikipedia neologisms have articles again? Samaritan 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How many anti-Wikipedia neologisms are there? --JEREMY 16:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just asking because you said we had "extensive lists." Samaritan 17:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; should have been more specific. I meant for example List of euphemisms, List of ethnic slurs, List of sexual slurs, List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us" and List of political epithets (the latter being where I've linked wiki-fiddler for want of a more appropriate anchor-point). --JEREMY 18:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just asking because you said we had "extensive lists." Samaritan 17:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How many anti-Wikipedia neologisms are there? --JEREMY 16:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since 2004, it hasn't - has it even been used by other authors at The Register? And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You're arguing to include it for pro-Wikipedia POV advocacy purposes, which doesn't sit right, and... how many other little-used anti-Wikipedia neologisms have articles again? Samaritan 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism. Rmhermen 16:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Attempt to promote a neologism. No useful content yet either, even Wiktionary would not be interested IMO. The fact that this particular neologism is associated with a campaign to discredit Wikipedia is interesting too, but irrelevant to the decision as to whether we delete the article. Andrewa 20:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For more amusement, see here for a squeal when this was first deleted, and here for a copy of the "article" headed from Wikipedia... (both links current as a write, but no promises...!) Andrewa 20:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 21:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism. Quale 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The keeping of this neologism would seem odd. RickK 23:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. Megan1967 02:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.