Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldspeak (Traditional English)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. A redirect doesn't really help since 'What links here' is rather empty. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldspeak (Traditional English)
strange fork of newspeak; should probably be a redir to english as nobody will ever search for this anyway M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Suggest merge to Newspeak Metros232 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Newspeak sounds good. I had forgotten the term, if I ever new it.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, it took me a minute or two to realize that it was referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four Metros232 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Newspeak ha! the word does exist somewhere on the internet! Whether you know it or not, check out the new updated site for Oldspeak! --Lord X 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * Comment huh? you hath confuseth me. What exists on the internet? and Oldspeak is still a redir to newspeak. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant the Oldspeak article called Oldspeak (Traditional English)--Lord X 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu


 * Delete pure Original Research, useless as a redirect. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article belongs on Uncyclopedia. -- Tangot a ngo 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article actually criticises wikipedia for not allowing original thought.. clearly encyclopedias are not meant to provide original thought but rather facts.. -- javsav
 * Delete per CrazyRussian. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  09:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per CrazyRussian. ProhibitOnions 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. --Ter e nce Ong 13:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four in a few years, so I don't remember for sure whether this term was in there. I don't believe it was. If not, a redirect is not appropriate. Delete unless it happens that the word does appear in the original work. Joyous | Talk 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crzrussian.-- blue 520  14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure Oldspeak is even in 1984. It seems more like something the writer made up on their own? --Matterbug 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge due to original research and duplication. Oldspeak is in 1984, and the article Oldspeak is a redirect to Newspeak, which already includes all of the useful information from this article. Also see Articles for deletion/Whiteblack. NatusRoma | Talk 18:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete toss it Newyorktimescrossword 01:54, 8 May 2006 (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.