Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiprocess

Old discussion from Votes for deletion
Discussion concluded and article kept on June 18, 2004

Antiprocess

 * Delete - dicdef (two nouns and one verb) - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Andrewa has a point. Surely this can be an article. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I came to Wikipedia because I found a reference to antiprocess on Google in a link entitled "Wanted Wiki Pages". I figured I should write something up.  However, this is my first day on Wikipedia and I didn't want to compose a long treatment and then find out that I'd done something horrendously wrong.  I will update the article within 2 days with more detailed information. --Timothy Campbell 17:21, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * The best thing you can do for an article is make it encyclopedic instead of a dictionary entry. For example: Look up something simple, like Airplane in the dictionary and in an encyclopedia.  In the dictionary it gives you a definition of the word and its usage. In the encyclopedia it shows you types, models, history of, famous pilots, etc.  An article on Antiprocess should read like a textbook and not a dictionary.  Does that help? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Fascinating and well done, but it doesn't belong here. Maybe somewhere in Wikibooks? Andrewa 23:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I am currently in discussion with two Wikipediographers about the article. After reading their advice, I expanded the entry to downplay the dicdef aspect.  I will also look more closely at the advice given here. Having said all that, I wish to make it clear that if the article is deleted I will not take offense.   --Timothy Campbell 16:24, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Oy. This is... this is very good, but... well, I vote keep, because it can be fixed. DS 00:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I have made the article much more appropriate, although I don't know if it should be kept. - Centrx 21:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, in present form. I think it's now a clear "keep." Needs work on NPOV, I think; it's not clear to me just how widespread the term is, how accepted the process as described in the article is. Above all, why the heck it is called "antiprocess?" I guess it means "a mental process that sustains an attitude of antipathy, the process of becoming an anti?" I think the article is very tactful in suggesting that "the prime location to see it is in Usenet discussion groups," avoiding mention of other venues closer to hand. Dpbsmith 21:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - great job on the changes - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  04:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Centrx, for bringing the entry up to Wikipedia standards. To Dpbsmith:  the reason it is called "antiprocess" is because the mind is exerting a bias against processing information.  Many thanks to all for your numerous helpful suggestions and kind hand-holding as I get my bearings here in Wikipedia. --Timothy Campbell 05:15, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)