Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifascist


 * 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 was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow as "trolling attack page - oh the irony!" (I concur.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikifascist

 * — (View AfD)

Contested speedy with discussion, AfD nominated to give opportunity for full discussion and consensus. In my opinion, an unencyclopaedic article about a neologism (WP:NEO). May have potential for WP:BJAODN. Chrisd87 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Urban Dictionary is the antithesis of a reliable source. Zero gnews hits for Wikifascist. An unverifiable protologism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete; nn neologism, violates WP:NFT --Mhking 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this is obviously an attack page. KazakhPol 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I already placed this on WP:BJAODN before the Speedy was contested. Although a more refined version of this might have a place in the WP namespace.  skrshawk  (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — The only time I have seen the word "wikifascist" was on a site highly critical of Wikipedia, where it was used to characterize me with regard to remarks I addressed to Bernard Haisch. No formal definition was offered, but the context made it clear the intended meaning had nothing to do with rapid deletion of articles. (They chose the bits they wanted from what I said, and added a bizarre spin, so I would not trust their use of the term either.) I might vote to delete this article, but then (according to its definition) that would make me a wikifascist. It is a mere definition page, not an encyclopedia article; and it is Wikipedia talking about itself. --KSmrqT 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, and the only purported source cited or available is a web site whose goal includes the publication of made-up definitions for words. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as improperly sourced entry that violates WP:NFT, WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, and WP:CIVIL.-- danntm T C 05:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete self-referential and per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and send to wiktionary. I don't want to enter in details such as the term was used sometimes by Daniel Brandt and that urban dictionary entry was made by an unhappy editor. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an attack page. Just a copyvio. Most of the article is a copy and paste from urban dictionary. Anomo 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment perhaps it would be helped by some specific examples? &rArr; bsnowball  12:33, 4 January 2007 (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.