- 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 delete as an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a vehicle for personal attack, and as vandalism. The article itself describes an appellation that one person used to describe a computer bought by another person. This is on the border of attack page territory, since it is an indirect attack. However, the subsequent actions of the author of this article (68.81.39.182 (talk · contribs) — 68.83.162.143 (talk · contribs) is possibly one and the same person), including repeated blanking of this very discussion (see this page's history) after having been twice warned not to vandalize Wikipedia, convince me that this article is also vandalism. That and the use of Image:Drill.jpg as a supposed image of the person being attacked provide enough additional reason for this to qualify for being speedily deletable as a combination of both.
The fact that the article tells us that the term was coined the day before yesterday leads me to believe that there is no scope for an encyclopaedia article here, in any event. The authors' arguments below that the article is "helping potential buyers steer clear of this machine" and that to delete this would be "taking away knowledge they otherwise would [not] have had", coupled with the fact that the article is already grossly non-neutral, making bald recommendations as to what the best computer to buy is as it does, convinces me that writing a verifiable encyclopaedia article from the neutral point of view that does not contain original research (i.e. "knowledge they otherwise would [not] have had") was simply not the intention here at all.
Despite all that, I looked to see if such a verifiable concept existed, anyway. I could find no sources saying that it does.
Uncle G 21:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article's author: the two IPs are not both me, but rather myself and a friend. Just to clarify.
Appears to be a non-notable attack on the Macintosh G3 by a couple of jokers. The images border on vandalism (the kid assembling the desk is copied from the Down syndrome article). —Cleared as filed. 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an attack on the Macintosh G3, but rather one owned by someone whom I know. In our community this term has caught on, and so I believe a page for it is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.182 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 December 2005
- This is a valid definition. I am used to hearing it, and it is widely accepted as fact - not fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.162.143 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 December 2005
- delete - I see no justification for keeping this article at all. It is inherently unverifiable at best. It seems to be an attack page targeting someone called Dean. Lupin|talk|popups 16:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you knew Dean you'd want to attack him too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.182 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 December 2005
- This is unacceptable. The definition is valid and at least 100 people I know think it is as well. And, it's not a personal attack; rather, an attempt to help people to avoid the same fate Mr. DelPeshio suffered, which was buying an antiquated machine that serves no purpose but to waste excess money that should have been saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.162.143 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2005
- Delete - not encyclopedic. --HappyCamper 16:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the one who created the page, and I refuse to let it be deleted. It is the defintion of a local term and I feel that not letting it be published on the web is limiting my freedom of speech and negates the purpose of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.182 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 December 2005
- Respectfully, Wikipedia is not limiting your free speech - it is simply not intended to be a repository of terminology coined on a local basis - you might consider adding this entry to Wiktionary - a sister project of Wikipedia, where it would be more acceptable. I believe they accept neologisms. --HappyCamper 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary most emphatically does not accept protologisms. Uncle G 21:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, Wikipedia is not limiting your free speech - it is simply not intended to be a repository of terminology coined on a local basis - you might consider adding this entry to Wiktionary - a sister project of Wikipedia, where it would be more acceptable. I believe they accept neologisms. --HappyCamper 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per HappyCamper. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per HappyCamper. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or a dictionary. worthawholebean talkcontribs 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per HappyCamper. rodii 17:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article was acceptable for a speedy deletion too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, as an attack page on the person who is named in the article (not the system). Read the original creator's versions, look at the picture caption. (I put the {{db-a6}} tag on it). - Bobet 18:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that this should be reconsidered. One should not (not saying you can't) judge something at face value, as the administrators here have obviously done. And, I do think it is detrimental to society, because you're taking away knowledge they otherwise would have had. It is also helping potential buyers steer clear of this machine, as it is obviously obsolete and not worth anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.162.143 (talk • contribs)
- PUT THE DEFINATION BACK RIGHT NOW!!!
- Agreed. Hey Caesar reconsider!
- 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.