Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blop/2005-11-16

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 speedy deleted by me for having no useful content or history. Friday 16:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blop

UE, D ComCat 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What on earth does UE mean. Please either make more effort to be intelligible or stop making nominations. CalJW 02:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UE (UnEncyclopedic) nonsense FRS 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. extremely UE. wikipediatrix 04:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IWTINM. (I would have tagged it nonsense myself). Jasmol 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not actually grounds to vote "keep," you know. It's grounds for not participating or fixing the nomination, and I'm sure we'd all like better nominations. Please, no WP:POINT: don't take out your aggravation with the nominator on Wikipedia itself by spiking the vote and having us keep an article on "how to make a blop." Geogre 10:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlyons493: Try as I might, I do not see how keep vote on Blop, which should have been speedied as patent nonsense, can be made in good faith. If I explained that ComCat means to say "Unencyclopedic, delete" would you change your vote? Or would the point you are trying to make still be more important to you? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no disruption made to the encyclopedia in this case. POINT is not applicable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every second that patent nonsense like Blop continues to exist is a disruption to the encyclopedia. Therefore, impeding consensus for its deletion due to a personal grudge with the user who nominated it for deletion would, in fact, be "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point" — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - from POINT: "disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the 'proof'." (emph mine) One nonsence article requires one nonpartisan editor (in this case, a partisan editor, namely, myself) to clean up after the proof. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS - templated sigs are a disruption of the encyclopedia, in that they do require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the proof. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's continue this discussion elsewhere. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Geogre 10:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D. UE NN OR. HAND. --LM 13:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY delete patent {{nonsense}}. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Dottore So 15:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.