Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahwrlaf Topkapi


 * 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 was   Speedy delete as blatant vandalism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahwrlaf Topkapi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is disgusting that another piece of nonsense from The biggest jimmy has survived for three days. The Topkapi kebab shop is no different from hundreds of similar shops in London alone and its proprietor no more notable than hundreds of others. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a joke article to make fun of a neighbor. No place in serious encyclopedia. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete junk, block creator. JuJube (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a joke article: Man from Del Monte, griller of goats, kebab on knitting needle. Mick gold (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave as be Since when did wikipedia become the biggest online high horse for people to climb on?

Block creator! Ha, if you were to read through my contributions you'd see some well researched and well written complete articles, why not write your own exclusive encyclopedia purely for your own reference then?

I assume that this must be what the warning about grumpy users that's in the standard user talk page refers to? And that I shouldn't be scared off regardless. I do find it quite a revelation that anyone could be "disgusted" though at an article remaining in place for 3 days? Personally I reserve words like 'disgust' (or equally 'passion') for real world events that are worthy of, and stir genuine human emotion like say violent crime, corruption, love ..etc, maybe it's time to evaluate what percentage of the real world over zealous "policing" of wikipedia is for you. The biggest jimmy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Another note I think it's genuinely worrying (read 'distressing'/'appauling'), the idea that Wikipedia will become the preserve of a select few who enjoy nothing more than slapping each other on the back and cross congratulating each other on their jolly good articles. For me, the whole appeal of the site is that it lets anyone from any walk of life contribute, and if they so choose; also financially contribute to the future preservation and availability of knowledge. Having contributed to the site in both of these regards, I think you should either decide to open up the site to knowledge or continue to shape the site as an old exclusive gentleman's club. The biggest jimmy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete as per everyone but article creator. Could have been speedied as an attack page. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.