Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attention whore


 * 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; stronger argument clearly raised -- Samir  धर्म 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention whore
Though this may be an actual term, the page is poorly written. None of the authors have provided sources. There seems like a lot of potential for attacks. DeleteTheRingess 13:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep page obviously needs cleanup but that isin't a reason for deletion Ydam 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Urbdicdef ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and cleanup, and cite cite cite! -- Xyra  e  l  T 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per trialsanderrors; when your sources and examples come from forums, you probably haven't got an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to the article improvement drive. Thankyoubaby 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question to the keep/cleanup voters: What exactly is the kind of content you envision for this article? Presumably not this kind? ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, whether or not this article stays around, the phrase is absolutely a notable term. I'd bet I've been using the phrase for a decade, and I'm only 21. Want proof of notability. How about over HALF A MILLION Google hits for "attention whore"? Now, with that said, I'm going to vote for a transwiki to Wiktionary and a delete of the article; my vote for delete only comes from the fact that the article could never possibly be anything more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and cleanup per Kicking222. Any article cannot cite examples because that would be POV, but can probably give hypothetical examples. I can see this becoming a Wikipedia-standard article, though not a featured article for sure. If there are good articles about the term, they can be used to improve it. If not, then I agree with Kicking's vote until there are. We do have articles on internet slang. Morgan Wick 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per trialsanderrors. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equendil Talk 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per trialsanderrors --Arnzy (whats up?)  11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic.  --Musicpvm 17:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. We're not a dictionary. Nandesuka 14:09, 20 June 2006 (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.