The result of the debate was delete. See comments below. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I have never heard of this term, the article is unsourced and a Google search turns up no results. [1] waffle iron 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Emphasis added.*Keep Our band's claim to fame is our coining of the word Strampop, which is gaining popularity in the local scene. I suggest that the validity of Strampop be ascertained, before the deletion of this page is finalised. Kilbosh 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*Hold as per VodkaJazz. Comment Could we please await news from VodkaJazz, as well as any replies to Proto's request on
Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board before further discussion is entertained?
Kilbosh 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Validity of Discussion Concern Condsidering the repeated cries of sockpuppeting and ballot-stuffing, I wonder if it is actually the delete vote that is trying to orchestrate its efforts! Is there some secret forum, somewhere, where you all meet up and decide to gang up on unexpetant fresh articles? I think its time to put the sock on the other foot, and ask the proposers of the delete vote wether or not they are 'meatpuppetting'. Chris Zuli 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. See comments below. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I have never heard of this term, the article is unsourced and a Google search turns up no results. [1] waffle iron 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Emphasis added.*Keep Our band's claim to fame is our coining of the word Strampop, which is gaining popularity in the local scene. I suggest that the validity of Strampop be ascertained, before the deletion of this page is finalised. Kilbosh 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*Hold as per VodkaJazz. Comment Could we please await news from VodkaJazz, as well as any replies to Proto's request on
Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board before further discussion is entertained?
Kilbosh 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Validity of Discussion Concern Condsidering the repeated cries of sockpuppeting and ballot-stuffing, I wonder if it is actually the delete vote that is trying to orchestrate its efforts! Is there some secret forum, somewhere, where you all meet up and decide to gang up on unexpetant fresh articles? I think its time to put the sock on the other foot, and ask the proposers of the delete vote wether or not they are 'meatpuppetting'. Chris Zuli 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply