Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/++ungood;


 * 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 unperson'd.-- Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

++ungood;

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as nomination. Springnuts 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN geekcruft. Doubleplusungood (the Orwell version) is a redirect, but I don't think this one merits even that. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a non-notable neologism with no acceptable sources. The fact that it was coined to put on a T-shirt underscores this further. — Krimpet (talk/review) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable joke. Can only ever be a dicdef. WjBscribe 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete a dicdef at best. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the C++/Newspeak connection has already been discussed to adequate detail (with sources and all) in C++. I don't think we need to explain all possible variations of it... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, naturally. ManinBlack, I see this delete proposal stems from a comment on your talk page citing ++ungood; and newbie as examples of dictionary definition pages, and citing apparent inconsistency in enforcement of dictdef policy. Since you haven't proposed newbie for deletion despite that obviously being a dictdef page, I tend to agree with the sentiment of that comment. Or does the ++ungood; page simply lack a stub footer? Lack of potential for expansion should not be a cause for deletion - otherwise, we should delete the entry on Shakespeare because he's dead and potential for article growth has been limited by his demise. There are a lot of articles that fall under the dictdef definition - Orange (word) springs to mind, as does much of the rest of the Words category, which should probably be removed. On T-shirts: I suspect that there are rather more people (including the notable Guido van Rossum and the rather less notable Danny O'Brien and Aaron Swartz) wearing ++ungood; on a T-shirt than there are wearing Wikipedia. Krimpet - Neologism, yes. No acceptable sources? Hardly. The history of the term is well-documented, and the provenance of the sources is good. Speaking of provenance of sources, Wwwwwolf, I've fixed the inaccurate citation on the C++ page. You're very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
 * Newbie could probably be cleaned up. This obscure joke-only term really can't, due to a lack of references we can use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a dicdef. -- Whpq 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel that since this article includes one of the words used in the following book, it might/should be redirected to 1984...? -- Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, Lloyd Wood, please sign your posts. -- Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article was created because I discovered a redirect from ++ungood to Newspeak already existed and built on that. On signing posts - the history log already holds that information. I don't see the value in signing posts when you're anonymous. Is newbie a dictdef, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
 * Newbie is not a dicdef, as it is used very much in popular culture, in gaming, among others. However, the article in itself needs some major cleaning up. Nobody actually looks for ++ungood; it should just redirect to Newspeak. SIGN YOUR POSTS! It makes it easier to know who wrote what. -- Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.