Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopimi

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. —Mets501 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kopimi

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log

)

• Delete as NN blog meme. 1250 hits on kopimi site:se (46,000 when you do -site:se, so it isn't just a svensk thing), but none that I can see meet
  WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Only halfway decent link is the Online urban dictionary which shows no proof of nobility. It is also not a part of our article on The Pirate Bay. --Banana04131 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  top 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak merge and redirect to The Pirate Bay. --Dennisthe2 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with The Pirate Bay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -for now. It may be something new, so it could come back in the future. For now however, it is very unnotable. JackSparrow Ninja 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Seems non-notable at this time per
  WP:WEB. Ronbo76 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep - A kopimi is a logo used by some people on the Internet for a specific purpose. Furthermore, the term kopimistic, which is used on a site with a large public exposure, links to this article. Klassica 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not work on the principle of taking editors' sole words for things, nor is it the place for first documenting the undocumented. Please cite sources to show that this logo has already been properly documented outside of Wikipedia.
    Sources! Sources! Uncle G 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - There is nothing to prove that it is noteable. It links just to itself. Seems to fail [WP:WEB]] as only no noteable sites even seem to mention it. It is both a symbol and a new age term that fails
  WP:NEO.--Dacium 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: missing to much information to make a fair judgement. Meuh! Oh well next time source it. --CyclePat 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JCO312 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable on Wikipedia but could be moved to Wiktionary.
  addict 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mkdw^talk 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  FirefoxMan 02:25, 19 January 2007 (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.