KEEP Excellent article, not nonsense at all. This is what wikipedia is all about! Wikipedia should not just be restricted to terminology and events which are found in Britannica, if users wanted this they would go to britannica.com and not this excellent site.

• Wikipedia already contains perfectly valid articles about topics that are not found in Britannica. However, that doesn't mean not being in Britannica is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I could write an article about my dirty underpants but it wouldn't be notable enough for Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 13:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a person of your intellect can work out the difference between your dirty underpants and the term NUGGET Sparks_333 1:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• What this appears to be is a collection of school kids who cry out, "Listen, you old farts! We have this funky new word/concept/idea and we're going to use it, spread it around, and grab this chance at immortality. If you disagree, we'll make fun of your self-inflated intelligence." So be it. Then make a web page and tell your tale. But, this isn't encyclopedic. I voted delete, and made it strong delete because of all the silly puppetry. I don't see my vote changing. Ifnord 05:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I followed a link to deletion/NUGGET on Wikipedia but had no idea what it was. I had to go to Google and look it up. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for.

That's a lot of meatpuppets. I'm on the final lap, but I can't see the finish line 18:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]