Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggerchanovsky


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Niggerchanovsky
Neologism. Was "prod"'d in the past but is back again. Fr a ncs2000 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sort of thing belongs at the very bottom of the Trivia section of another article, if that. -- Steel 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When your reference is urbandictionary.com you know you should not be creating the article. - Motor (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is valuable supplemental reading on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.116.115 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Man, that is stupid. That's almost as stupid as the movie The Stupids. -- Kicking222 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as trivia goes, or as indiscriminate information... I suppose I could call a lot of pop-culture stuff the same, except when it's popular or widely accepted/known about? This is a legitmate piece of information that supplements the iTap article - as far as referencing urbandictionary.com, the first part has nothing to do with the online collection of slang terms, I just felt the second half could follow the first - remove that part, fine.  But couldn't I call Leeroy Jenkins popular trivia and a waste of Wikipedia's valuable space?  Not that I don't understand the impact on society this character has made, or where he's been found, but if he were gone from Wikipedia tommorow...I really don't understand how it would make a difference, either.  Maybe I should nominate the article for deletion. [/sarcasm]


 * And Kicking222, thank you for logically and throughly presenting your opinion without bring any emotional or abrasive feelings; all of your comments were, in general, necessary to the situation and really made this yet another pleasant experience on Wikipedia by providing even more proof of the care and understanding of the many users here (stupid stupid stupid? whoops!). I see you've created an article for Dan Gutman and Splashdown_(band); since I do not see how either one of those articles are important (they both seem more like promotional pieces for small-time things that I'm willing to bet don't affect a majority of lives out there; tsk tsk tsk, Wikipedia is not a soapbox!), I'll nominate those for deletion too. [/sarcasm]


 * I'm not trying to be militant, but understand where I come from. Sudden curiousity strikes and I'm reading the T9 article - I link over to iTap, and I see my entry in "See also" - except it's not there...  A little research later, and I feel like it's important enough to include; I guess if I can create an entire world in my head and sell it to people either in the form of religion (s'up Scientology?) or fictional novels (s'up The Lord of the Rings), and get more than a hundred people store it in their memory banks (not to mention take up ALL THAT WIKIPEDIA SPACE - have you seen some of the fictional tangents these LOTR worlds have taken?  Heck, just look at the Halo storyline...) then it stands as legitimate Wiki material...


 * I just added like 4kb? of relevant, true fact (at least the first half), and all the people I've shown it to have appreciated it. *shrug* Am I really taxing the servers with this info?  I mean, it's SUCH A HUGE ENTRY, and it just doesn't stop getting traffic hits (I better stop typing in all-caps, that adds to the size of a wiki article too, doesn't it?)... If so, point me to that paypal thing again and I'll throw $5 towards the server fees.  Sorry I'm new to the scene and can't do all the fancy-pants link redirecting or image-inclusion, or understand the "status-quo" of Wikipedia, but more and more this project feels like another elite forum... you guys spend so much time on here, make your self fancy little icons, a nice user page, this and that about counter-vandalism, multiple languages, and cowbells...and suddenly you guys are the newest cyber-frat.  And little guys like me might get our articles shat on...


 * Ha, I wrote about 10x's more defending the damn article than I did about the article itself.


 * P.S. Please defend the existence of these articles (List of high school dropouts, Government cheese) --- MeNext 16:36 ET, 15 June 2006
 * Thanks for the reply! I'll try and explain why it's up for deletion: it doesn't have any sources with reliability. That is, anyone can add entries to Urban Dictionary, and that's the closest this article has to a source that someone else can go back and check up on. That means there's no way that we can test if this is a hoax or not without getting a phone with iTap ourselves, and no source for any of the speculation that comes after it about why it's there. That's just not acceptable for an encyclopedia. This is not to say that it doesn't have a place, but it's a big Internet, and it is already on Urban Dictionary (which deals with these kind of things). As for comparing it to other articles, I agree, I don't think the enormous effort that goes into some pop culture stuff is useful at all, but it's sourced and easily verifiable from written sources, which is important under Wikipedia policy (the three big ones at WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). It may seem arbitrary, but it's running on that fundamental principle that any additions need to be credibly sourced. Z iggurat 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Tychocat 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a repost. If N/A, regular delete as a meme that did't really have an impact.  young  american  (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a better source than the Urban Dictionary can be found. Z iggurat 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardly any reliable sources for it to be utilized in a constructive manner.--Auger Martel 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt that this information is of any real use to anyone. As far as I can see it's an article about a random word, or rather the fact that you a phone can suggest it to you (even if it does contain a word that is considered offensive). How is that helpful information? Retodon8


 * 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.