Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad and Wrong


 * 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   Delete.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad and Wrong

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Notability and it appears to be WP:OR. QuidProQuo23 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not really original research, the jargon file comes as close as you can get to being a reliable source as far as "hacker" jargon goes, not really a notable expression though. Equendil Talk 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia has elected to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary/usage guide. So let's keep it that way. --Rividian (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, and no indication in the article about whether this is notable even in the world of computer programming. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the Jargon File is an interesting and amusing read (if you're an aging geek), individual entries need not find their way here unless somewhat notable (like foo, bar foobar, flame, bug, kludge, etc). Equendil Talk 19:00, 11 September 2008 (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.