Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 12 September 2006. The result was keep. Xoloz 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Defender of the supermart

I was serious with that article.(Although that is a freaky title) I wanted to write about a flash series I saw. It actually was an epirement to see when the humor region of adult's brains stopped developing.Cfive 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a "Not Safe for Work" Template...

...for pages like this. Nudity and gore are limited to the computer screen, at the very least, so others might not notice them if walking by or outside the right line of sight.

Uncontrollable laughter, on the other hand, is a lot harder to hide.

  • i entirely agree with the user above. there's coffee coming from my nose. as a side note, the vast majority of these article titles would make amazing band names W guice 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Now presenting, Raptor Jesus. After that, put your hands up for Attack Of The 50 Foot Hitler. :) KinseyLOL 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd definitely go to hear "The Cheeses Has Eat My Friends"! Lawikitejana 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No One Writes to the Colonel

I guess the author of "No One Writes to the Colonel" tried to write about the book from Gabriel Garcia Marquez "El coronel no tiene quien le escriba" which might be incorrectly translated to "No one writes to the Colonel".

If so, then that should have been a valid post.

Regards,

--Hlasso 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I checked and in fact the article exists, so there must be some contradiction... Hlasso 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof?

I know there's no point in linking to a deleted article's title, but how about linking to its entry in the deletion log? As proof that these articles did exist and were not just made up. --Stratadrake 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of these articles don't even have deletion logs... I looked for the deletion log of "Your worst nightmare" and couldn't find it. SupaStarGirl 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, all of the articles listed when I started this page did actually exist at some point. Some may not have deletion logs since they have been redirected rather than deleted outright, and others won't have AFD pages, at least, since they were likely prodded or speedied. In the case of "Your worst nightmare", though, I cannot find any record of it ever having existed under any capitalisation, so it shouldn't be on the list. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion logs only go back about two years. Anything created and deleted earlier than the end of 2004 won't show up – Gurch 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. But it could provide an easy mechanism to keep this list pruned; not every freaky title needs to be kept forever. Otherwise this article would just keep getting longer and longer as new freaky titles are found. --Stratadrake 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that Gurch means that there are none from before the end of 2004 - not that they are regularly ditched after two years. In any case, it'll take a while before the size of the list is any real problem - it hardly grows as fast as BJAODN. When it does get long, splitting it into transcluded alphabetic subpages wouldn't be too bad. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right. ...wasn't that when the deletion log was started or the like? At any rate, some older listings can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion log. --Stratadrake 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's them all source, I think... There seems to be a gap of about a month (November 2004) between the end of the old deletion log and the start of the new one - items from that month are either sourced via BJAODN (ref name= WP:BJAODN) or with a note that the deleted pages can still be read by admins but that no deletion log entry exists (ref name= admin). Everything else either has an AfD entry, a Deletion log entry, or is listed in the old deletion log (ref name= WP:ODL). Grutness...wha? 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we go easy on using the "admin" proof. --Stratadrake 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - but since it was only items from November 2004 that need it, there won't be any more new ones like that. From now on any new ones should all have deletion log and AFD sources available as references. Grutness...wha? 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...but is it daft enough?

We don't really have any criteria for what constitues a "freaky" title, do we? Some of the titles in this list sound strange, but not freaky. --Stratadrake 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to suggest that a set of articles that weren't worth keeping are worth having a separate set of criteria for? :) I suppose if you really feel strongly about it, you could simply be bold. Lawikitejana 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not so much actual criteria (which would be like trying to define "being a dick"), but more like common patterns observed by the titles already on here. --Stratadrake 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note the original intention when I created the page - the only reason for the word "freaky" was to make an approppriate acronym. Anything that's more than slightly bizarre can come here. But it's not really possible to define "more than slightly bizarre". Grutness...wha? 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Shelly fauna?

Er? A genuine subject with a genuine article. Shouldn't be on the list, I think. Tevildo 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. --Masamage 22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G10 titles

New question -- do we add titles which (themselves) could be considered attack pagess? This seems like the reason why the older Wikipedia:Deletion log is blanked -- concerns over libel. For example, this: [1]

It's certainly a freaky title, but also a CSD G10. --Stratadrake 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semordnilap

Any chance of the above article (now a redirect) making it onto here? Totnesmartin 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Stratadrake 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How the prequels should have went

Not only unencyclopaedic, but ungrammatical to boot. :-) The title should of course have been "How the prequels should of gone".

Make that "should have gone" and you're right :) Grutness...wha? 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Angry German Kid qualify for this listing?

The relevant AFD discussion says it was speedily deleted as a broken redirect, but if someone attempted to create that page as a full article, the result would likely be deletion as a non-attributable Internet phenomenon. Being non-notable is not really related to having a freaky title, even if some Wikipedians might be unfamiliar with that Internet phenomenon. Should we consider removing that entry? 131.215.159.216 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think notability comes into it at all. The only important questions are, was it deleted? And is it freaky-sounding? I don't personally think it's all that freaky, but it's not exactly mundane either. --Masamage ♫ 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There's always going to be a certain amount of arbitrariness as to what is or isn't suitable for the page. "Angry German Kid" isn't really "freaky", but it is probably strange enough to sneak in. Note the comment at the top of the page that the word fraky was chosen as much as anything to make a good acronym for the redirect, rather than for some precise definition of the term. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that notability had anything to do with freakiness - the fact that I did was a poor choice of words. My point was that someone was probably unfamiliar with the meme, and the fact that the page was a CSD R1 (instead of a PROD or AFD for non-notability) didn't give any information to help. I am going to see what I can do as suggested by WP:BOLD (probably adding a parenthesized note of some sort). Canceled on account of WP:BEANS - advertising that it's a non-notable meme may not be a good thing; also, per the above comments, "freaky" is used very loosely anyway 131.215.159.216 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think this should be deleted again, with BJAODN

WP:DENY. Pages like this just encourage and glorify vandalism, driving people to create nonsense articles, which is a waste of helpful users' time in deleting them.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will disagree until I see sound evidence that a significant number of people do in fact create articles just to get them into here. --Masamage ♫ 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, many - probably the majority - of the titles on here weren't vandalism, but were rather genuine if misguided attempts to title articles. They wouldn't qualify under WP:DENY. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite a few are band names; no limitations on the potential weirdness there. --Masamage ♫ 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN redirects

Now that BJAODN has been deleted there are several redlinks in the article, I'm not sure where they should be redirected to. Darrenhusted 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vibrating strings

Does this really belong here? It turns out to redirect to the legit vibrating string article.

Also, I'm quite amused by the title about that notice posted in some random Finnish building. Very Library of Babel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.191.39 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Seven blind men from Alabama

Was this article really deleted? The reference goes to an unrelated footnote at the bottom of the page and this group did exist as a genuine, notable black gospel group as this page from CBS News shows. B1atv 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

This is a bit weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Give_me_your_bank_account_details The page content was a picture of a fruit pudding. 82.133.95.239 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks weird enough for WP:DAFT, definitely. I'll add it in. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)