Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrr

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 was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merrr[edit]

Wikipedia is not dictionary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a slang definition, and frankly, that's what Urban Dictionary is for. Send it over there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essayist original thought on the definition of this word. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and CSD tagged as such. Please don't use AfD as a first resort. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? Which criteria? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used "no content", prolly should've done "nonsense". Seriously, it just rambles without saying anything. Also there's no way a prod would be contested. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not nonsense. So "nonsense" is not applied here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It differs from a speech disfluency such as "argh" or "blah" in that merrr is a word used deliberately to represent other words, rather than as an accidental or temporary interjection into speech.

Author is coining new words in order to talk about nonsense. In any case, it's probably not a bad idea to just bring the article to the attention of an admin, some way or another, and avoid wasting several people's time in AfD. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, also after checking your contribution, you have not enough positive contribution, no DYK, no article etc. So don't teach other about "time waste". Try to build some good articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that I'm not a positive contributor, and that this debate is not a waste of time -- you weren't/aren't sure whether the article would actually be saved in the end. I wasn't copping an attitude before. Going straight to AfD is a bad habit, especially for freshly created articles. If you're patrolling new pages, you should ONLY use prod & csd EVER. Anyway, now I'll cop an attitude and say you're discouraging good newbies and wasting time of other editors if you consistently use AfD instead of PROD. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Should have been PRODed first, actually. I agree it's a dicdef, but I'm against two-minute-flat AfDs on principle. RGTraynor 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Man, this should've been speedied a long time ago as patent nonsense. Qworty (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.