Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)
  • Dammit, I was gonna say that! And yes, reading some of these nearly made me pee myself. Kalmbach (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2010 (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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you sure you're not talking about The Blind Boys of Alabama? Orville Eastland (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is a bit weird. http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Another suggestion

I no longer have proof of this, but I remember a while ago someone who had been vandalizing pages created a User Category with the title "Wikipedia vandals." I wonder if that would qualify for this? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deletion log for Category:Wikipedia vandals. I don't find that category name very outrageous or funny though, but it's a subjective decision. Graham87 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion, along the lines of this present page's title...

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.238.140 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. The problem with that is that if they're blocked users it automatically implies they're vandalss. This page, a lot (hopefully most) of the titles are from genuine attempts at creating articles and weren't deliberate vandalism. Wikipedia doesn't really want too many monuments to vandalism. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The deletion linked to says exactly that, with a fairly strong consensus and referral to WP:DENY. It was probably funny, but alas. --Masamage ♫ 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, addendum: it might be possible to have a list of funny names that are not blocked. The only problem is that people would probably get uppity about whether or not their own user name was included, and on the whole I suspect it would distract from the purpose of the wiki. We really don't need unnecessary competition. --Masamage ♫ 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there was some uncertainty about what I meant, I was wondering if the title "Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames" was freaky enough to be added to this page(I guess it'd be kind of recursive, too). 68.123.238.140 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right - sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, it probably would at that... Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Most worthy subject

If I could vote for the one most worthy of being restored, I would vote for things that are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly. (Of course, it could be merged into the BO'R article but that would violate NPOV, I suppose.) --WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Should these be in?

I noticed that "shoop da whoop" (A internet meme in which a Object with a face (faced?) Fires a lazer out of its mouth with bright red lips and bulging eyes) and "kitler" (A image of a cat that resembes Adolf Hitler) are not on the list, Should they be added? 14:48 21 Janruary 2009fulizer —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Problem with internet memes is a lot of them have pretty freaky names anyway. They could go on the list, though - it's up to you. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't know what those were, I would not think the names themselves were freaky. They're just nonsense sounds. --Masamage ♫ 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugly Canadian Girls

Wasn't this one deleted off this page? For being reported by its creator? And now someone put it back? What's going on? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{communications} _{accomplishments} 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I undid the edit putting it back. The page was created a few days ago and almost certainly inspired by the listing of "Ugly japanese girls" on this page—a worrying precedent, as somebody could move to delete this page for encouraging vandalism. I really don't want that to happen, as I think this is the funniest of the humor pages. Best to squelch the vandals quickly. Maybe the rule you added will help. A. Parrot (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a downer, but...

If'n this page is ever *gulp* deleted, due to some stupid folks who want attention, I wouldn't let the page be in vain. I would save it on my computer, in a word file if need be. Like A. Parrot said, it's the funniest of the humor pages, simply because of the randomosity hits you like a machine gun, over and over, until you practically wet yourself with laughter. I must confess, it is the greatest of temptations I have resisted to create a DAFT article. That would be truly hypocritical. *steps down from soapbox* We need to save this page. It'd be a cryin' shame to see this page die in the fires of Wiki policy. Maybe, if there's an admin willing to put down humorous stuff, I'd like them to stand up. Give this page special protection. Make it so vandals can't submit their own content. Only the primo DAFTness can shine through. Deliberate vandalism is different than someone who was just random enough to make something funny. If only we could keep this out of the eyes of vandals. Behind closed doors, so to speak. Vandals won't ever know, so they won't try. The list is funny right now. Sorry for typing your eyes out. I happen to be rather prolix. Maybe I should write novels. IDK. The first L4L fan ever, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^stuff _{more stuff} 04:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

Another Chip-dumper

Another user recently added a page to the list that I discovered that they made. Should it be deleted? 2D Backfire Master ^{fast food} 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A. Parrot (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

UNdeleted articles with freaky titles

Just wondering, should we maybe have a page for pages with freaky titles that still remain?

Examples:
Neutrality Patrol
Spain does not need wise people
Muhammadry
Me name's Brian, not Brain
Cod Wars

I know these names make sense when you read the articles, but out of context, they seem fairly 'freaky', and would warrant a place on this page if they were deleted.

Just wondering what people think

Kill me when i die (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The titles that have their own articles, and aren't simply redirects, can go to WP:Unusual articles. As for the rest, I suppose you can make the page if you want. A. Parrot (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a freaky redirects page is in order then? Kill me when i die (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find around twenty or so, perhaps. ^finalius? _indeed! I'm back! 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jewry, Jesusry and Muhammadry always make me giggle. Me name's Brian, not Brain and Spain does not need wise people are mentioned above. Poor Perception of Danger makes me giggle, but i'm not sure if it'd count. I don't know anymore but i'm sure they're out there. Kill me when i die (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Maybe Tourist of Death too Kill me when i die (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a redirect (which was an article before I merged it) called Aah (god). I think that sounds kind of funny. A. Parrot (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, i like that one. We're up to 8 pages, 12 to go Kill me when i die (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to like Turbotonator and Damn (it) Damn cookies! (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also peeple tends to amuse me Damn cookies! (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that tears it. To the guy who used to be User:Bully25 and User:Kill me when i die: stop creating stupidly titled pages. That's vandalism. Obviously you like this little collection of silliness, so why are you risking it being deleted because it promotes vandalism? And don't think you've fooled anybody, User:Damn cookies!, showing up on an obscure project page just a week after User:Kill me when i die got blocked. You have two choices: you can quit editing, sit back, and watch this page grow naturally through the foolishness of other editors, or you can be foolish yourself and watch it disappear. A. Parrot (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of hoax/vandalism titles: clarification needed

A title which I recently added was removed because the article in question was speedy-deleted as a hoax. However, clicking through the citation links for various entries on this page shows that quite a few of them were also deleted as patent nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, or even attack pages. So do those get to stay under some kind of grandfather clause, or should they be culled out? 69.111.189.155 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. The rule was added in 2007 when this page was up for deletion, but it wasn't very rigorously enforced; only some really offensive titles and articles created by prolific vandals were removed.

I happened upon this page a couple of years later, around the time that User:Grutness, its creator, was becoming less active, and I found myself maintaining it. I started strictly enforcing the non-vandalism rule for new additions to the page because somebody seemed to be creating vandal articles just so he or she could add them here (see the four preceding sections on this page).

That person seems to be gone, but I don't want to give an opening to him or her, or somebody else with a similar mindset. Most of the preexisting vandal titles have been here for years, and the people who created them probably moved on years ago, so I don't think those titles are such a problem. So yes, you could call it a grandfather clause. But nothing here is official, and if an editor who's fanatical about WP:Deny recognition were to show up and demand the removal of those titles, I wouldn't argue. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of entry

Regarding this removal, that entry was removed before but the removal was reverted as unexplained. Somebody really wants the entry removed for whatever reason, whether out of embarrassment or some other problem, and I don't think there are any good reasons to deny this request. It is not absolutely essential that *every* *single* entry remain on this list forever. Graham87 03:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No objection here. I didn't find it very funny anyway. (I'm fairly picky about what I add to the list these days. I feel there are a lot of entries now that are merely odd, without the baffling bizarreness of, say, "Poorly built rocket bus" or "Hippie in a can" or "I just poured HOT GRITS down my pants", or the punchline-like notes that appear under entries like "The word parakeet written exactly 254 times". Of course, it's all subjective.) A. Parrot (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)