Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wereo

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, among other problems. – Friejose 21:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!(Unsigned edit by 207.251.232.173)

The term is used tens of thousands of times on usenet. It is worth including.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)

It's a word coined by a man trying to illegally sell a pirated music bootleg. The reason it is so common on usenet is that he spams prolifically trying to sell copies of his tapes. At best this is a Vanity Page, at worst it's an advert for illegal goods. Either way, delete.(Unsigned edit by 194.79.243.65)

I can't recall the man trying to sell the recordings of the "wereo." He just proclaims that he has them. The above message is an example of the types that would have it deleted for no good reason.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)

• ''Delete' per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ' Nobody proposing keeping this cruft appears to have any interest in improving the article beyond merely keeping it in its current neologistic, unencyclopaedic form. I'm changing my vote to Strong Delete and am wondering whether an assertion that it's been "referenced" on Usenet rather a lot of times really is an assertion of notability, per 80.229.30.88. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 205.188.116.72 (not the IP of the original author) keeps blanking this page. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the text of the entry is the problem, please someone edit that text. I am no expert on encyclopedic authoring. The most important facts are these: "The Wereo" is referenced over 23,800 times on usenet. "The Wereo" is not just a slang term but is itself an actual movement on usenet by several hundred people. "The Wereo" is more popular than many subjects that have listings on Wikipedia. Squidhammer(Unsigned edit by User:209.205.191.147')'

This is blatantly incorrect. Those "several hundred people" are one prolific troll and a small group of hangers-on who follow him around. A simple google search will verify that. This same troll like to use the word "awl" instead of "all" (along with many other such baby-talk spellings). Do you therefore suggest "awl" deserves a wiki page just because one man has used it 100,000 times in usenet posts? Ludicrous.(Unsigned edit by User:80.229.30.88')'

Awl does have a WP page. The Cockney rhyming slang usage seems rather apposite. Tonywalton  | Talk

Comment once again blanked by 205.188.116.72 Tonywalton  | Talk 22:41, 26 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.