Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faggoth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep and merge; the page already has a merge template. Eugene van der Pijll 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism used by very few people. If the only link for information about the word is a "source for rants, raves" then I'm not impressed. Jackliddle 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into black metal (as I originally proposed). I'm not familiar with the context, but it seems to be a term that people actually use. However, I don't think it warrants its own article. - ulayiti (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obscure neologism. I'm not even sure if it deserves a one-sentence mention in black metal. Punkmorten 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with the non-merger Jackliddle 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect. There appears to be valid information here, but Google thinks it is just as likely to be a username as a (insulting) musical categorization. Plus, now I can categorize my Cradle of Filth. Eldereft 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Either keep or merge/redirect. (Note: I am the person who wrote the article.) Googling the term will reveal that it is in use (albeit infrequently, and often disapproved of). Therefore, I believe that it is useful to have a description of what it is. SpectrumDT 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting "faggoth" to black metal is just wrong. Besides, it is a neologism, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place to explain it. But I see your reasoning. Punkmorten 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why "just wrong". SpectrumDT 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because Faggoth isn't Black Metal and a redirect would be misleading Jackliddle 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but faggoth is used in BM context to describe borderline bands. (Note that faggoth is only "supposedly" distinct from BM.) SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your note there says it all. Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but faggoth is used in BM context to describe borderline bands. (Note that faggoth is only "supposedly" distinct from BM.) SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because Faggoth isn't Black Metal and a redirect would be misleading Jackliddle 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why "just wrong". SpectrumDT 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting "faggoth" to black metal is just wrong. Besides, it is a neologism, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place to explain it. But I see your reasoning. Punkmorten 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, someone please enlighten me: According to what Wikipedia rule is this article to be merged, rather than continue on its own? SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the lack of notability for an own article. However, no hard feelings, but I stand by my delete vote, since it's an obscure, vague neologism. This is the second Google hit, consider that. Very few people in the BM scene actually use the term. A search on Norway's largest metal forum gives zero hits (consider Norway's importance to this genre). Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reasoning behind wanting to delete, but the whole merge deal seems illogical to me. It doesn't seem to fit in very well under BM, so to me it looks better to let it stand on its own. SpectrumDT 01:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the lack of notability for an own article. However, no hard feelings, but I stand by my delete vote, since it's an obscure, vague neologism. This is the second Google hit, consider that. Very few people in the BM scene actually use the term. A search on Norway's largest metal forum gives zero hits (consider Norway's importance to this genre). Punkmorten 18:22, 6 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.