Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-blog
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, self-promotion. The article's creator promptly bragged about it on their blog - see [1]. Rhobite 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self-promotion per nominator. *drew 01:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -- Egil 01:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then delete again. Deltabeignet 01:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nomination.--Alicejenny 08:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you people need to get a life. Get over it. If you're going to delete it, just do it and move along. Here you are talking about self-promotion and all of you are shamelessly linking back to you user profile so people can read about how high and mighty you are. We're not writing a constitution here, it's a wiki. Heard of freedom of speech? I'm not selling anything. I'm not a commercial business nor do I have any other agendas. I've set up something that I think deserves to be in Wikipedia. But if you're going to be dicks about it, then be my guest.
I suggest you go and use your time to do more productive things in this world rather than being wiki nazis.
- Delete. This discussion is not meant to be mean. We are trying to make an encyclopedia and an article about a website which only 59 pages link to Google most of which are archives from the site and which has no Alexa ranking or press coverage to speak of isn't an appropriate article topic. This discussion is meant to give the issue exposure so all Wikipedians can share their view on the matter. BTW, our signatures aren't meant as self-promotion but as a means to identify who said what (see Wikipedia:Accountability) - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Perodicticus 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Then shred the electrons, smash them into their constituent subatomic particles and bury them in a deep dark hole. And jump on it afterwards. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Mgm.--Isotope23 14:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- LOL at the indignation of the AfD blogger. Mylakovich 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone, yet another neolojizzum. "Fed up with the mainstream nature of blogging, certain ex-bloggers have taken the phenomenon to the next level." Great, now I'll always remember the day in my life when the universe changed for the better. There really needs to be a CSD along the lines of "Is a blog, blog author, blog-related neologism, or has ever uttered the word 'blog' in a sentence which did not also contain the words 'vain', 'rambling' or 'worthless'". --Last Malthusian 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neolojism, n. An article ejaculated onto Wikipedia by a one-handed typist.
- Keep, why do you always delete things that are non-notable. WP is going backward!
- Delete per nom. Nothing personal though, Patrick and Giv.
- 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.