Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media whore2


 * 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 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Media whore
Kostja 03:41, 8 June 2006
 * Delete Article was AfDed in 2005. Nothing has been done with this dicdef and inherently PoV article. Non encyclopediac. The list of Media Whores doemonstrates the lack of WP:V this subject contains. Dominick (TALK) 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom. PJM 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's probably something useful to be said about Media Whore as a term in general; although WP is, of course, not a slang dictionary, it's worth remarking upon as part of the current social and cultural make-up. Unfortunately, this article as it stands is complete tosh - it's an arbitrary list of celebrities whom the editor doesn't like, and it lacks any sort of NPOV or verifiability. Delete, until someone can bring it back in worthwhile form, if at all. Seb Patrick 13:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless anyone can be arsed to make a sensible entry about the concept (personal favourite example would be Kevin Warwick, but that'd just be pushing my WP:POV). --Coroebus 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete DJ Clayworth 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. That'll please the press in Belgium.  -- GWO
 * Keep. The concept has been used frequently lately and I think the concept deserves an article. The solution to problems with POV is editing, not deletion.


 * 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.