User talk:BoondockXSaints

Speedy deletion of Right Way
A tag has been placed on Right Way, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —  iride  scent  01:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Right Way
"The criteria for speedy deletion under patent nonsense is:

''1.  Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "i9da7gy98sdygida%£U%ETDFHc8vda097tt{%£^O&£^IEUyrhgietysbvd}TYu{og;d", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed, (or typed with the eyes closed.) ''

2.  Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

''This page quite obviously falls outside of the total nonsenes category. And I believe that there is no proof that a reasonable person can gain nothing from it. It provides a comprehensive guide to using alternatives to the traditional directional system."''


 * Nice try, but that's not what WP:CSD actually says. (If you really object to the category, I can delete it under G3 or A7 when you repost it if you prefer.) If you want to cite policy, you might want to read WP:NFT, WP:RS and WP:N while you're at it. Does this article have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to demonstrate its notability? No, didn't think so. —  iride  scent  02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)