Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaChimp

 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 13:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

MetaChimp
delete vanity - put it on your user page instead CoolGuy 06:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:MetaChimp has created this as an exact duplicate of his existing user page, I wonder why? Andrewa 06:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: The user page has been changed to represent its user, not his idea. I didn't think anyone would look at a new user's page, so I used it as my 'sandbox' before making my first article.  It was not intended to stay that way.  MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)


 * Keep.  It has been revised to better portray the philosophical meaning of the term, and make it more widely acceptable.  Yes, it has been written by its subject, but "the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional".  It is the concept that I wish to remain and grow on Wikipedia.  If the original creator's accreditation is the problem, then perhaps we can consider another edit, rather than a deletion.  Thank you for your time.  --MetaChimp 06:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: So, the purpose of this page is to promote a neologism you have invented? See your talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: neologism. Thank you; I learned a new word.  Webster's second definition for it is "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic".  Not exactly what I was going for, but I understand that it might appear that way.  As any concept, yes, it began with one person.  I liked the concept so much, I decided to adopt is as an online screen name.  This doesn't make it exclusively about me, any more than the concept of a "coolguy" is strictly about user:CoolGuy.  Though there is no current book or the topic, there very well might be in the next decade.  What better place to have its public beginnings, than on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  I have explained the concept to literally hundreds of people, each time a little differently.  Why can there not be a single, set meaning, that anyone who is curious can look up on Wikipedia, and then contribute to?  I will ask a few others to view this discussion, and hopefully express their opinion. MetaChimp 19:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Webster's second definition seems quite irrelevant to me, see neologism. See also what Wikipedia is not, point #5 particularly, and No original research, particularly the bullet point regarding neologisms. Please sign your posts. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the signature to the post above. Andrewa 20:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Though there is no current book or the topic, there very well might be in the next decade. What better place to have its public beginnings, than on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. When a book comes out on it, it will get its article here. And what better place for it to have its public beginning? Well, http://www.metachimp.com/faqs/, that's where. Oh, hello -- it's already there, where we also read "All content © 2003 MetaChimp". How does this claim square with the GFDL of Wikipedia? -- Hoary 06:30, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Point Taken I am willing to accept the judgment of my peers, as dictated by the posted guidelines, and withdraw the MetaChimp submission.  Should I wait for deletion, or remove it myself?  Thank you to everyone who has helped me understand the inner workings of Wikipedia though this exercise.  Hopefully, my future contributions will be of more use to the community. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * (corrected)
 * Comment: Please stick to the normal VfD format, user:MetaChimp, otherwise you risk having your vote ignored. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did look, but didn't see an expressly laid out "VfD format". I just followed the lead of the first vote.  Does it need to say "kept" instead of keep?  What format did I fail to follow? MetaChimp 03:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't evidently notice that every other person uses one bullet point only for their vote, and signs at the end of that? Henceforth go thou and do likewise, otherwise your vote looks unsigned. It just makes it easier for the sysop who eventually needs to take action on this. They may be doing quite a few at a session. Andrewa 09:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * remove - there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. CoolGuy 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)  (just some comment, not another vote)
 * Delete, vanity, already on users page. Megan1967 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: The user page has been changed to represent its user, not a concept. MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)


 * Overtly promotional, not salient, no encyclopedic value, vanity. Delete. -- Hoary 07:42, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Response: "Overtly promotional". I see no URL pointing to "metachimp.com".  That would be overtly promotional.  As it is, it presents a concept, accredits its birth, and is ready to grow of its own merit. MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)
 * OK, as the article now stands: Covertly promotional, not salient, no encyclopedic value, vanity. -- Hoary 05:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)


 * keep this "This doesn't make it exclusively about me, any more than the concept of a "coolguy" is strictly about user:CoolGuy." is a valid point.--Silentskream 03:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: that was Silentskream's first ever contribution to WP. I smell sockpuppetry! -- Hoary 03:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * If I were to engage in "sockpuppetry", it would be much more thuroughly done and in a way to swing the vote-count in my favor, not a single comment from a new user. To respond to the accusation, however, I only have one account, and have only used one account, ever, on Wikipedia. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, user MetaChimp has had 1 edit, changing one word in an article, besides fighting to keep his vanity as an article. CoolGuy 04:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * see Ad hominem, a logical fallacy. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have been here for two and a half months, your total contribution in that time has been to change one word, and even that change is one I have proposed to revert. For this reason, even if you had not now agreed to the deletion of the article, your vote here would not have counted for much. It's not an ad hominem fallacy, although it probably looks like one at first glance. See also your user page. Andrewa 03:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey! I don't like that ejaculation, Andrewa.  I have relinquished this page, but I defend my edit. MetaChimp 19:40, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Noted. Also noted that you have still made no other contributions. Andrewa 06:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote: Delete, unless MetaChimp can evidence other people using the term, in which case, this seems, though neologic, a viable conept qv multiverse --Simon Cursitor 06:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for the positive reinforcement. Coolguy should take note.MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter nonsense, vanity. Quale 02:01, 30 Apr 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.