Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Alphabet meanings


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

English Alphabet meanings

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

original research CapnPrep (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Further details and history: This article is a copy of User:Goldendirt. I nominated it for speedy deletion, an admin converted this to PROD for OR, which the article creator immediately removed, with the following edit summary:
 * I am the author of this article. and in my blog, there are the research materials of from Korean version to English version. [ http://blog.naver.com/yjangh ] anything else?

The blog post in question (aside from being an unreliable, self-published source) only contains a subset of the information that currently appears in the article under discussion. CapnPrep (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please read the post, name is "blog data". it's not a subset but a course of data. you could check virus and download the files, because they are files. In the post space, there is a download icon upper-side and right side. and they're MS Word files. And the post, name is "Korean and English name folding structure" would have the applied Alphabet meanings about sophia. --Goldendirt (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it that the MS Word files downloadable from your blog contain all of the information that you've put in the article. If this were an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I would encourage you to cite it correctly in the article. And I would encourage you to summarize and not to just copy entire pages of the source verbatim in the article. But in reality, don't bother, because your blog is not an acceptable source for this article. It is self-published material which has not been subjected (as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) to any editorial oversight or independent review. Furthermore, you have an obvious conflict of interest as the author of the blog and the sole content editor of the article. In order for this article to survive, you need to find reliable, third-party sources to substantiate what you've put in it. The "Reference" section that you have just added to the article is totally inadequate: "1. Bible (Contemporary English Version, Korean version) 2. English Dictionary (English into Korean, English into English, Korean into English version.)" Nowhere in the Bible or in any authoritative English dictionary is it stated that the letters of the English alphabet have the meanings that you say they have, or that the meanings of whole words can be calculated using your method. CapnPrep (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you because of the fact that you would take my word. However, my blog posts are not self-published materials, because "published" could be meant as "Having a Copyright, Gaining money". My blog posts are free for all. I just verified this points in the blog post, name is "blog data". So, Any Copyright matter doesn't occur. And, The headline name, "reference", so to speak, it's a correct name form. Socially, and individually one person's name could have an honor, but in reality, those two have the attributes of reference. first, In bible, 1Corinthians 14:7-11, Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13 makes my inspiration, perceiving, and faith about this method. So, it's the basic source of my method as Bible scriptures. Secondly, an English Dictionary doesn't have my word calculating method. but, if I had no reliable compared consequence of performance, How could my method be verified by myself? An English Dictionary could make me having the confirm of my method. So, I think, it's the second reference. An English Dictionary is Not "result"(because of having no my course), Not "conclude"(because of having no my method), but consequence(because it's compared with my data in common). So, any English dictionary could be my reference. Third, I think of "reliable" matter is a kind of "verifying" matter. if you want to verify my content, please use the headline contents, name is "How to use This Method". fourth, If you want this article not to be a redirect form, I will clear my user page. please answer about this suggestion. I didn't know redirection page was so prohibited that my article could be deleted. I just want others to be able to search in other search sites. In my opinion, If I have to delete User page or Article, I will choose to clear my Userpage. Until after redirection matter would be resolved, I have no choice but to leave my Userpage. please inform me of confirmation as Wikipedia. --Goldendirt (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The redirection matter has already been resolved. Anyway, this discussion is not about your user space. It's about the mainspace article you created, and if the consensus is that the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia, the article will be deleted, no matter what you do with your user page. CapnPrep (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care if my article would be determined to be deleted or not. I am the author of the content. If the article would be deleted, I will delete all of my data in Wikipeida. and, I will register the paper of mine into the academy. In my blog, the very time will be the witness. I will make step by step. I will make the back data of this content in the sphere of field by field. I could have the empty desire of famous something. it's not a matter of us. I am just watching the confirmation of Wikipedia. You know what? my content was mailed to United States of America administration and Australia administration and Korea administration years ago. they're the witness of my time. You could know my content to be verifiable. its derivation is from only me. I work for public benifits. Not a private benifit. And How joyful redirection matter has already been resolved! I am a lucky guy. Thank you for your kindness! --Goldendirt (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of this article and this content. there are the research materials of from Korean version to English version in my blog. I am not an another finder of this article. just me. As the author of this topic and materials, I uploaded this article, containing the course of researching. So, No original research cannot be permitted. And If you want to verify this article, please use "How to use" headline contents. --Goldendirt (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Comment moved from article page. Jafeluv (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC) =>I am the author of this article and this content. there are the research materials of from Korean version(first two materials) to English version(Second four materials, included as "ten fingers(self-made story)".) in my blog posts, names are "Alphabet meanings", "blog data" which could be downloadable in blog post space upper-side and right-side, "Korean and English name folding structure". [1] I am not an another finder of this article. just me. As the author of this topic and materials, I uploaded this article, containing the course of researching. So, No original research cannot be permitted. And If you want to verify this article, please use "How to use This Method" headline contents. --Goldendirt (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article doesn't make any sense at it stands, and we shouldn't have to read somebody's blog to find out what it means. It seems to be one person's original creation.  If it described a widely used system of numerology, it might be notable, but the article doesn't say anything about the history or social role of the system.  Not notable.  Original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This does seem like original research. I see no indication that the content is covered in any reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research material, we simply report what reliable external sources have said about the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as incomprehensible OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete original research, and bollocks to boot. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete' I did not know there was a Bollocks designation.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * D -> Fear as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus, L -> Dimension as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus, T -> Stretch out as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus. --Lambiam 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * lol :D Plus, I agree with everyone here. Incomprehensible, seizure-inducing, and totally OR nonsense.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible speedy delete as an obvious hoax; these meanings of the alphabet would no doubt surprise the pagan Romans who invented this particular form. We really need another Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense to preserve an anthology of the choicest of this stuff, and this is primo, almost as good as The Ansestorial Gods. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete OR and no place for it in a general-interest unencyclopedia — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question; why was this changed from a speedy delete to a PROD?  - TB (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably because it didn't meet either of the specified criteria (G1, because the content is comprehensible, and G11, because it doesn't really advertise anything). OR is not a speedy criterion. Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What he said. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta. I see now that CSD:G1 (Patent Nonsense) specifically excludes "implausible theories"; your call was correct.  It does make me wince sometimes, presenting the feathery quacking things for formal identification. - TB (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is pure original research which appears to reflect one individual's religious views rather than a more generally held opinion. The meaning of words in the English language can't be derived from arbitrary meanings assigned to individual letters anyway. I don't see how this content could ever form the basis for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - POV-drenched OR that would get panned out of Conservapedia — and that's saying something. This is a textbook example of prohibited Original Research. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upgrading that to Speedy. And Snow. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

, b is from beta, meaning house, etc. This original research is so far off that I don't think I need to comment more. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's wrong as it's incorrect, and "not even wrong" as OR. The English Alphabet actually does have meanings: a is from alpha, meaning cattle or ox,


 * Wow. Not a snowball's chance of salvaging this. of Jesus. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I fail to see what relevance Korean sources can have to the Bible, whose original languages were (largely) hebrew and Greek, but they are the only sources cited. This looks to me like a typical piece of original research, in other words, an author's invention.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Jesus in the alphabet? Delete. Chutznik (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2012 (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.