Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hater

Hater

Non-encyclopedic, a dictdef that exploded. Twaddle. RickK 22:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Rick. Karol 22:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• tagged as copyvio - end of discussion --Doc (?) 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Doc. RickK 22:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no problem deleting this but you may be wrong on the copyvio. The first half of the "hater" definition was created over two years ago and the second paragraph was added by another user (or user name at least) over a year later, and still more than a year ago. The web site you cited in your copyvio notice, on the other hand, has no entries in the Internet Archive, while the Wikepedia page appears twice. Though not dispositive, it strikes me that it is more than likely that the other site lifted the definition from Wikipedia, not vice versa. Why should we have to start rewriting articles just because other sites take Wikipedia works without attribution? DS1953 23:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not very knowledgeable about the internet archive - I realise I assumed bad faith from WP editors rather than an unknown website (an unsafe presup). Happy to be guided here, should the copyvio be left to run? --Doc (?) 00:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OK I'm removing copyvio tag. Debate reopened - I vote delete as per RickK --Doc (?) 12:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 19:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like notable part of raver subculture.  Grue  14:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grue, notable stereotype. Kappa 20:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, it is something that should be kept. Maghris 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)