Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hog urine

Hog urine

Pig piss doesn't strike me as being particuarly notable. Shane King 13:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• If it can be verified as having genuine uses, then keep. And clean up. Darksun 13:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • So to speak. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting article, Reithy 13:06, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified Gazpacho 13:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'm very skeptical, think this is a prank. Phrasing of article does not sound serious. Do not believe "taking a shower in hog urine" is in real use. Exact phrase searches in Google (web) and Google Groups as follows:
  • "shower in hog urine" 0 web, 0 groups
  • "shower in hog piss" 0 web, 0 groups
  • "shower in pig piss" 0 web, 0 groups
  • "shower in pig urine" 0 groups, 1 web ([209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1138042/replies?comment=1] caution context is contemplation of ways to torture Islamic terrorists)

P. S. Only use for "hog urine" I was able to find was in a concentrate used by hunters for boar hunting. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Pour down the drain: obvious hoax, the language gives it away. — Bill 16:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Just another prank. Geogre 16:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --Improv 17:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious hoax. Indrian 17:48, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• D Wolfman 20:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, possible BJAODN candidate. Delete - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Seems like a (bad) joke to me. Strangle the author, or delete Dukeofomnium 01:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 05:24 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Passw0rd 16:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jayjg 21:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Perhaps hog urine deserves its own encyclopædia article, but this one isn't it. Delete as a hoax, or at the very least verify and send to cleanup. Psychonaut 14:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

NSK, nsk2@wikinerds.org , has stated that http://jnana.wikinerds.org , an all-encompassing "knowledge base" rather than an encyclopedia, is interested in having all VfD-ed articles resubmitted to them. I am going to submit this one. Others interested in their project may wish to do so with other VfD articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My first reaction was "What a good idea!" followed immediately by "What a waste of time. Let 'em get 'em themselves." 's bad enough wading thru this muck without becoming a dealer in second-hand offscourings, and foisting it onto others elsewhere. If I think it's dumb or useless, why should I want anyone to put it online? I'm not a fuller. — Bill 16:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They do that, and they'll end up with material that's libelous, nonsensical, utterly dull, and just plain wrong. I can just imagine articles on reincarnated elvis, detailed categories of articles on the sidewalk in front of some guy's house, and other fun stuff. But hey, if universal knowledge includes all of that, then the more power to them. Somebody should write some scripts to give them knowledge about what their /dev/random spits out -- that information should be preserved! --Improv

17:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you read the site, you'll see that "the sysops have exactly the same freedom (i.e. we can delete/move/change anything we want)." [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for NSK to let us know what ID he uses on Wikipedia. Four people now have asked for such an identification, and until he does so, I consider him an email list troll and will not participate in this process. RickK 04:29, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Any idea if "NSK" might have something to do with Neue Slowenische Kunst? -- Jmabel | Talk