Deleted Wikipedia articles with freaky titles


Originally published at:


Rectal Anarchy:

If there was one this is what it might sound like.


“References to polycephaly in popular culture” seems like it would be interesting and have enough material to be retained.

"Random boner syndrome"
Much scientific, wow. I’m assuming most of these are references to bands. Some so obscure that the only trace of them online is articles about deleted Wikipedia articles.

Presumably that’s what the article was originally about. There seems to be significant inconsistency and flux with Wikipedia pages about specific albums for some reason. And generally with creative endeavors - I know a number of people who had Wiki articles, some that went into creepy detail, that were there for years before completely disappearing, presumably because someone suddenly decided they were no longer notable.


Priapism is real, and can cost you your job if you work as a model in a university art department - even if it’s totally random and unprovoked.

Or so I’ve heard.


It’s in their text books
Some are on that crazy ark
Why not on Wiki?


Didn’t we see these last year?


Isn’t there a website or two devoted to deleted Wikipedia articles? ‘Deletopedia’ or something like that? There certainly should be. Or it could be called ‘Hell’.


Hey, that was my page!


And then it jumped out at me, Raving White Octopus. Well the title anyway.


Damnit Rob, this is the deepest Wikipedia hole I’ve falled into in a long time - I need to sleep!

Also, the edit wars page is pretty hilarious:


In case you were looking to name your band.


For the record, “Random boner syndrome” wasn’t really deleted. Its content was folded into the more accurately named Pseudorandom boner syndrome page.


Thanks for sharing that. I am still scrolling. The benzine edit war was inflammatory already, but the last sentence on the Cumbumbumberbatching Star Trek film really made me plunge into a darkness of humour I haven’t felt for some days at least.

On a more serious note: nationalism seems to be behind most lame edit wars. I disapprove.

Well, this is quite good:

After ten years of disputing, as of August 2012 there have been 1,269,228 words posted on the article talk page without reaching any agreement.[133] By comparison, all of the Harry Potter books combined have 1,084,170 words in them.

Also, the irony:

In a spree of 60 edits in less than 20 minutes, four bots edit warred about which hidden comment should be added to the top of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

But still, ST:ID made me laugh hardest.


Agreed. Polycephaly seems valid enough. Could be a pretty useful resource for scholarly research.


You owe me 2 new speakers…


Frankly, I doubt a truly “random” boner syndrome exists. True sources of randomness are much too rare for me to be encountering them… um… I’ll catch up in a minute, no need to watch me stand up.

closed #17

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.