Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivephilia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. (Minus multiple votes) - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Vivephilia

well LOL but exist such a thing? Melaen 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment: the user inserted reference to this article in Vampire and in -philia

Wait a minute, you haven't checked out everything I got (and I might've forgot to mention, I wrote that page)-- I also put pages for vivephile, necrophile, and a couple others. I made sure it all connects well; no loose ends. Keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 14:43, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history. Not re-signed by WAS. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
Speedy nonsense. --Xcali 21:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~"...but as for the dead they are conscious of nothing at all." Whoops, that's my religious extremism showing. Delete as unverifiable.~~ (Unless this guy can confirm). --Scimitar 21:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- switch vote to abstain, per comment below and additions to the article. --Scimitar 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
well, just think about it in terms of this-- you have "vampire", although you don't believe in them; this is basically the medical term for vampirism, so why not believe in it? Most people won't admit easily to believing in life after death, but we still have articles on reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, and the whole rest of the lot. Besides, there are stories about vivephiliacs which are considered to be classic literature by the Library of Congress (I cite Bram Stoker's Dracula as a prime example). I still say we should keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 21:53, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 2nd vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
Speedy - I confess it made me laugh to start with. I already tried to speedy this but author deleted the tag. Absolutely no truth in it, no google hits etc. Can some admin remove it please? Will => talk 21:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Google returned no hits, of course. But this desperately needs to be immortalized in the bad jokes and other deleted nonsense section. I was lol! CanadianCaesar 21:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why be so quick to judge? hey, just think this way-- if you say that Judas wasn't a Shylock just because the man came before the description, you're just losing a term which could be used to sum up a frame of mind in its entirety. Dracula came before vivephile, but it doesn't make him any less of one. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:06, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 3rd vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
Delete an amusing hoax, but don't send it to BJAODN since that ought'nt to exist anyway...-Splash 22:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
this one is for Splash personally: who're you to damp out other people's fun? If it's not yet accepted, it ain't... but if people want to call it a joke and still enjoy it, why'd you haf'ta ruin it for us all? cynical, unrelenting, pompous shmuck! I hope you rot in your turn, while the worlds of imagination pass thirty feet over your head... sorry, did I say "hope"? I meant, if you're that narrow-minded, how could you not? keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:24, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 4th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Quite. I prefer narrowband channels to narrow minded people. -Splash 22:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
well, Mr. Splash (into the harbor, while inside a potato sack, I should hope), I ought to apologize for that attack on you... but I won't. If it takes you fifty minutes to realize that you were actually insulted, I can't take it seriously that you watch your back closely. Maybe you should start trying harder. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 00:19, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 5th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
Delete - Nonsense -- Dpark 22:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
not at all nonsense-- if you remove this page, it's only going to resurface in some time... Besides, in the -phobias section, they have a fear of ducks watching you, taken from a Far Side cartoon; why not allow, in the -philias section, that there be an entry based on Dracula, a classic horror novel? I think it should be taken as an actual thing, not just a joke-- considering the number of people who believe that there are such things as undeads, that it is theoretically quite possible. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:18, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 6th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
Delete. Like you said, the word for the duck phobia is taken from a Far Side cartoon. Where is this word taken from? Can you cite any realistic evidence for the word being used by anyone? Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
actually, friend P Ingerson, your comment is completely null and void. You are complaining to me about a completely different entry, one which is basically irrelevant to this entire discussion... I never said anything on the Far Side phobia as being part of my work... it is another story completely! But you digress and miss the point; I think what you meant was 'is there any etymological proof for 'vivephilia'?'. To be quite honest, I thought people could catch on a bit quicker! It's merely the latin opposite of "necrophilia". 'Necro-' is 'dead', '-philia' is to have a lust for. 'Vive-' is 'alive', '-philia' is [see above]. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 00:00, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 7th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
delete ➥the Epopt 23:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cute, but delete. Buffy wouldn't have it any other way. Oops - forgot about Spike. My bad. Denni ☯ 00:59, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Delete nn neologism. --Etacar11 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. mikka (t) 17:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still say we should keep it; more so because it is a one-word description of a personality which has become a synonym for several 'real' terms and ideas in our language and culture (Varney the Vampire, Elizabeth Bathory, and Dracula are, just for starters, are as much a part of vivephilia as Napoleon, Œdipus, and Narcissus are a part of mental complexes-- though they came before there were definitions for what they had wrong with them, they still came to represent the thing in its entirity). WAS 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) (This user's 8th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
unverifiable. original research. Delete. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
Delete Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.