Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High evif

 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. &mdash; Xezbeth 07:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

High evif
Delete - some high-school kids who like to high-five with the backs of their hands came up with Deep Philosophical Meanings for it and declared it a movement. FreplySpang (talk) 20:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner06 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner06 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 Jun 2005
 * Do Not Delete- The popularity of the high evif is such that it deserves mention. However, I think the article would work better as a sub-section of the article on the high five. The trend is found almost exclusively in the mid-west and is most concentrated in North Eastern Ohio, thus it is not surprising that many are unfamiliar with it and its significance; the card game Euchre is another trend restricted almost exclusively to the mid-west; its article, however, is not up for deletion.
 * Delete. Unverifiable/original research. --Tabor 20:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable, probably a vanity page by the "inventors" of the gesture.  The nonsense about Randian Individualism is kind of funny, but we don't need grandiloquent trivia cluttering up the pristine pages of Wikipedia.  What we need is more pages about the larval forms of certain cards in Japanese games, and a page on each individual episode of McHale's Navy.  Oh yeah.  Frjwoolley 21:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Euchre wasn't invented by kids between January and April '05. I'd recommend doing some readings on argument by fallacy. --Scimitar 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't seem to make a difference who invented it. Pointing out that it was in fact invented by "kids" which, by the way, is not stated anywhere in the article, shouldn't detract from it's significance. On the contrary, given it's popularity, it would seem to increase it. -Do Not Delete.
 * Delete. A neologism and some original research. --Carnildo 23:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, not in real use, no Google hits. Quite possibly a prank. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete It is a legitimate trend that is growing.  I have participated.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.189.130 (talk • contribs)
 * Since when is a Google search the main criterion for determining whether or not a given practice is a legitamate social trend? It seems to me that many people who have no personal experience with the evif have done thirty seconds of research on Google, found nothing, and thought themselves informed enough to make a vote on this page. Runner06 (talk)
 * Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Give me a good verifiable reference I can check out and I'll reconsider. The Google test is not the main criterion, but it carries some weight, and an article that cites no sources or references whatsoever is not enough to outweigh it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per dpbsmith. The author's written several other nonsense articles in the last few days that are up for deletion, so this shouldn't come as any surprise. --Idont Havaname 03:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. &mdash; Phil Welch 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and fairly nonsensical. Falcon 00:00, 12 Jun 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 .