Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filters and Observers in rails


 * 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 -- JForget  23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Filters and Observers in rails

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

The article creator is using Wikipedia to publish an essay they wrote on their blog. It's not clear that this is anything other than original research; moreover, Wikipedia is not a manual for help with coding. Salvador Barley (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely prescriptive OR, belongs on the blog it was copied from. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. For reasons stated. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a how-to -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like the others AlwaysOnion (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This wasn't a speedy? LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of the criteria would you suggest? --Salvador Barley (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * G1? G2? I was really asking a question ..... not making a smart alleck comment.  I might have better said "This wasn't speedible?"  It was not meant as an affront to your listing it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speakinig out of turn here, but I don't think Salvador Barley was being affronted or interpreting your comment as being a smart alleck. He's just asking which criteria were your proposing it be speedied under since it's not obvious which criterion would apply.  To my mind, it fits none of the speedy criteria.  It doesn't fit into G1 as it not patent nonsense or gibberish.  It lacks context, but it isn't gibberish or nonsense.  It doesn't fit into G2 as it is quite clear (to me at least) that this is meant to be an article and not some test.  Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to LonlelyBeacon) What he said. It does seem like the kind of thing that ought to go quickly, but once the copyvio issue was put to rest, I couldn't see what would easily apply. --Salvador Barley (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for the education on that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete like a talk page, not notable, not well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islaammaged126 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.