Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andymanning: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
→‎[[Andymanning]]: closing discussion
m Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andymanning moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andymanning
(No difference)

Revision as of 22:08, 27 September 2005

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. The numerous votes from new and/or unregistered users were severely discounted. Joyous 16:16, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Andymanning

Neologism, not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 21:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Curps 22:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nick04 22:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --NewAtair Δ 22:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Maybe this should be merged with the Heavengames article instead? The word originated from there. Don't count on just my stance though; being from there I probably have a biased view on this. -- Natalinasmpf 22:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't used anywhere else, and we aren't here to reflect injokes on some website. Average Earthman 23:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Natalinasmpf, it should be merged with HG. Its not insulting anybody... Konigsberg_Monarch 00:12, 1 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:69.250.180.53, who apparently takes pretending to have an account very seriously. (You are welcome to just register. Seriously. It's that easy. There's no need to make it look like you have an account when you actually don't. You can just register one.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: As the actual victim of this I vote to keep. It's different than regular spamming as all posts are on topic and generally not a case of spamming, yet as a whole it does create an entirely new situation, worthy of a definition. Smurfing was called so because of a person creating aliases along the lines of "Smurf_blah", this situation is similar... --AndyMan1 00:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: MEVER. This article is very well done and also too maybe a very well done one indeed. Praises for Spit! ZBrisk 16:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Linds. It's hot, keep it! linzeeg92385 18:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • First contribution from this user.
  • Keep: I say this should be kept, but it should be moved to the Heavengames article. I'm repeating AndyMan, but this is something new which will most likely become, like smurfing, a part of internet vocabulary in the near future. - Loegaire
    • User:68.44.23.132
    • Well, once it is part of the Internet vocabulary, then it will be eligible for an article. But as of right now, it is not. -- Cleduc 03:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Merge with Heavengames. It could be very important for OD history. (c_moach) thutmosesiii 21:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • First contribution from this user.
  • Delete--nixie 01:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is anyone else suspicious about these keep voters? GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I labeled the anonymous and first-contribution votes. (Not trying to start anything, just for purposes of fairness.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 02:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEPz0rz. -Kman
  • KEEP OR DIE. -Von
  • Delete or all of you are permanently banned. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Zargax
  • Delete as not notable, not encyclopedic -- Cleduc 03:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. And anonymous contributors, you are welcome at Wikipedia, but please do not remove or tamper with votes. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's no reason to delete this. The objections seem to be that the term is a novelty. It was made up to address a novel issue. There is no suitable alternative word that captures the meaning. Definitions are all made up somewhere along the lines, folks--just deal with it. Isn't the point of Wikipedia supposed to be a reference to share information?
  • Keep: There obviously seems to be a significant demand for this term, and it gives meaning to a nondefined occurence. If this is removed, logically smurfing and Santorum should be as well.
  • Delete. Neologism. Not notable enough (very few Google hits). —Brim 04:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 04:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Shows promise as a new internet term.User:78.4.235.381
  • Keep: It provides a term for an otherwise termless phenomenon. Keep it hands down.
  • Keep: I like this... it has definitely potential to catch on, and it's the first way I've heard this phenomenon described in a single word.
    • Note that this comment is the first edit by TheRasher. The original edit was to modify thutmosesiii's vote; I reverted and copied the comment down here. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:Not too sure how this wikipedia thing works, but i like the entry. let's keep it
  • Keep:Come on, this is a good entry. Commies.
  • Delete. Postdlf 05:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Not notable. Caesura 05:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like a neologism that is only used on one forum. Not notable. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable, neologism. I also will probably vote delete on any article in which there are more than three sock puppet votes, just on general principles. RickK 06:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forum slang and give all these sock puppets a spanking. Gazpacho 07:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and redirect (merge and delete is an invalid vote due to GFDL restrictions). I'm one of those who jumped on this Andymanning bandwagon, and it most definitely does not deserve an individual article for sheer common sense reasons. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Just noticed all the ODers spamming this VfD. Guys, I know it's cool and all to be on an internet encyclopedia, but in case you haven't noticed, we have an importance policy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cut the spamming already and delete. Radiant! 11:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Forum vanity, probably trolling, neologism, dicdef, not encyclopedic. Seems speedy-deletable as patent nonsense and vandalism. --BM 12:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, obscure jargon. Martg76 13:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, obscure, dicdef, not notable, apparently sock puppet and troll bait. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell the unmistakable effluvience of talking hosiery! One's even seen fit to insult us. No, this will not do. Naughty socks! Delete for every rock-solid reason stated. - Lucky 6.9 01:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism, sock-supported. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. A waste of time. Zzyzx11 06:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- After reading all of this nonsense, why do I have the strong feeling that the author of that article and those socks spamming this VfD just want to be immortalized in BJAODN? Zzyzx11 06:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • But if I ever see this in BJAODN, I'm just going to shake my head in disbelief... Zzyzx11 06:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trollvertisement. —Korath (Talk) 07:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure jargon dicdef, platform for trolls and sockpuppets. jni 16:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andymanning&oldid=24190622"