Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek shopping
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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV, and impossible to maintain. Might benefit from being userfied, but I doubt it.DS 13:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with above, plus it's nonsense. Geek shopping is an anagram of Pigpen kegs, ho! Paul Klenk
- Delete hopelessly POV, nonsense Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. very interesting and useful. I might add a few things. Voyager640 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the anagram is proof that this is not an encyclopedia article. CDC (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic, and doesn't even mention Fry's. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Get a blog. --tranquileye 00:47:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
- Keep. These comments are proof that it is far easier to destroy than create, especially the anagram nonsense. If good reasons for deletion are presented then I am all for it (and a few mentioned above are), but how about making changes to the article to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that every article must start somewhere and that 'somewhere' will not be the final polished solution guaranteed an A in your English lit. class. I propose that if you have a legitimate good reason to delete the article, then spill it out, better yet make changes to it to make it more acceptable. If you just want to say something critical for the heck of it, then 'you' get a blog.
- Keep This page can develope, and is recently created. I think it should be given more time before this decision. vidarlo.
- Delete POV Rant, sorry newcomer. Karmafist 16:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the other "keepers": This page is a beginning and should be allowed to develop. In addition, the page represents a significant by-product of the internet age and though I can't help but smirk at such "techy geeks," I'd still let them make a point! Finally, one of the things I like about Wikipedia is that it's a one-stop destination for almost all serious information you'd ever want to find on the internet so I'm all for comprehensive inclusion and disagree with the enclopaedia-thumpers. --Lapin rossignol 10:39, 4 September 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.
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 wasalready redirected --SPUI (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Morrisey Delete - Paul Morrissey Keep
[edit]- Paul Morrissey is correct . Greetings MutterErde 13:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. It's cheap, easy, and doesn't require a VfD! Pburka 14:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Done! Redirecter 15:04, 27 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.