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 speedy delete. G3'd as a blatant hoax; article creator admtted openly to creating it as trolling. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dracu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Singularity42 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mostly a discussion of grammatical role, etymology, and usage notes – just what one would expect from a dictionary entry. That it's completely unreferenced (save for an external link to an online dictionary) doesn't exactly help matters. Hqb (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ok, let's think out of the box and not chose a single choice: delete. Basically what do you think should I improve? I don't really believe this article should be deleted but improved. Many of Wikipedia's articles commence in the same manner. You guys say are professionals. I am giving you the chance to have a go and provide some help in this aspect.

  This article is opened to further editing and it does NOT represent dictionary content. So please help by improving the content instead of deleting it. The information provided is deemed to generating public understanding about a fact or a phenomenon. Wikipedia is promoting freedom of speech online so please help in supporting the philosophy. It does not look as a dictionary. It provides more information, which makes it an ENCYCLOPEDIC article, as desired within the Wikipedia philosophy. If you guys have something against the fact it traces its origins to Romanian history, then I do understand why you want to delete it. Are you racists? Well what could you answer..

  So:

  • stop posting as ultimate judges, while you have a communist judgement.
  • do not continue to personally attack me, for I will gather more users and make complaints about you.
  • stop being racists and leave authentic information flow. Be democratic and valuable beings.
• Instead, you could just opt in for deleting and prove you are nothing more but a bunch of pathetic and frustrated haters (please don't take it too personally, since that has not even happened yet).

  Make your choice. I declare myself your friend.

  Regards. Cabbynet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Making personal attacks calling people racists and communists and haters and then in the same breath falsely accusing them of making personal attacks when they have not said anything about you at all is not the way to make an argument at AFD, or anywhere else in Wikipedia for that matter. If I were the closing administrator, I'd discount your argument here for the ad hominem with no foundation in content policy that it is, and totally ignore it. This isn't a vote, remember. Make a proper case for keeping, founded upon our Project:Verifiability, Project:No original research, and Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policies, or lose the argument. If there's a subject here, show that it's a real, properly documented, one, citing good scholarly sources that have documented it in depth. Or continue as you are and risk your editing privileges here being revoked. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and (given point #2 above) WP:POINT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm not sure why, but Cabbynet posted a copy/paste from his/her reply to a discussion taking place at ANI. I have removed it as it does not appear relevant to the discussion. However, for good faith purposes, I have linked that discussion here, in case Cabbynet intended to refer to it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT, WP:N and WP:V, possibly even a hoax: The hellish ghoul "traces its origins from ancient myths that stands for the culture of" ... a 20th century literary journal? The reference to the Order of the Dragon also seems dubious: That's Societas Draconistrarum, not "Ordo Dracul" (which generates some rather interesting Google Scholar hits). Note to self: I've never before been called a racist for opposition to hellish ghouls. I thought that's speciesism, not racism. Huon (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creator admitted following WP:ANI discussion they were trolling; I've CSD'd article. Nobody Ent 23:19, 19 February 2012 (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.