Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogger Fanniness
- 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. Tawker 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable Neologism (contested prod). --rehpotsirhc 
18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this could be a one-liner in another article. Sulfur 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and don't add as "one-liner" in any other article. Neologistic nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism & POV article, WP:NPOV violation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 21:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) - Don't Delete What have the Canadians got against this? A word of warning: just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's nonsense - the attitude displayed by Killer Chihuahua seems to be a good example of blogger fanniness. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.144.120 (talk • contribs) .
- Don't Delete - Agree with the above poster. It isn't POV when it has become something of an online phenomenon - not nearly as prevalent in the printed media, and perhaps caused by people hiding behind their computers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.75.65.14 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment - To the two posters above (if you actually are two distinct people): please read WP:NEO. Also, you might want to be advised that the sudden appearance of anonymous, combatively-phrased keep votes in rapid succession is pretty much gauranteed draw the ire of established editors and doom an article to deletion. --rehpotsirhc
14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - Comment - I'm the first poster above - I'm not sure how you put your name on this, hence the anonymity, but I can categorically state that I did not place the second post up. I also think that there is something scary and very wrong with your answer - are you seriously saying that the veracity of Wikipedia is based on whether posts on a debate make established editors angry? Is that the proper way to go about things? I apologise if my post was "combatively-phrased" I was merely noting the irony of one of the prodelete posts virtually proving the case of blogger fanniness!
- Comment - To the two posters above (if you actually are two distinct people): please read WP:NEO. Also, you might want to be advised that the sudden appearance of anonymous, combatively-phrased keep votes in rapid succession is pretty much gauranteed draw the ire of established editors and doom an article to deletion. --rehpotsirhc
- Comment I actually left the second of the two "Don't Delete" votes above, and just forgot to sign. I know people who have had perfectly good Wiki articles deleted without even a vote taking place - therefore the whim of one particular admin decided the fate of an article. I already had this 'Fanniness' article removed within 1 minute of being posted -with no vote - a couple of weeks ago, and decided to try the community once again. It looks like I'll lose this particular vote but at least the due process is being carried out on this occasion. --Gashdot
- Delete, for all the above reasons. 137.28.94.22 17:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:BALLS. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, non-encyclopedic Pete.Hurd 01:31, 23 April 2006 (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.