Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pubology


 * 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 regular delete. Article is not nonsense by the definition at WP:PN. However, it does fail WP:NFT. --Core desat  07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pubology

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Puellanivis 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT :: mikm t 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per above. --- Tito Pao 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's nonsense Trenwith 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom - Something college kids made up when imbibing too much. SkierRMH 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete, could it be speedied for A7? Trebor 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A speedy delete for patent nonsense was already removed. Someone anonymous (and thus potentially also the author himself) marked the page with a, and thus created a situation where a dispute of a Speedy Deletion would be contested.  I certainly agree that it should be speedily deleted, but I don't see any proper criterion for doing so.  --Puellanivis 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Y DELETE'''. The speedy delete tag was improperly removed by the article's creator; improper because no reason was given when  was added. Also, the article clearly violates the policy WP:OR, WP:NOT item 2, as well as the guideline WP:NFT. -Axlq 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''SPEED
 * The summary of the deletion of the section specifically stated that the article was not nonsense (as I am in agreement to).  It is not patent nonsense, this should be patently clear.  The content contains essentially no useful information, but that is only because it is not notable, and is OR.  As per section stated above, the article does not meet any proper criteria for Speedy Deletion.  If people could just settle down and wait about five days, then the article will be removed.  Also, the edit removing the speedy delete was not by the author, but by User:Tonywalton, who returned it to a Proposal for Deletion, on the grounds that it was not nonsense (which it is not), but it did qualify as a neologism.  In looking into the issue, I found that the article meets at least one criterion for AfD, and thus, I took steps to mark it for AfD.  In the process of investigating what criterion it meets, I did consider Speedy Deletion, and found no criteria suitable to list it as a Speedy Delete.  Patience is usually considered a virtue. --Puellanivis 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the tag was improperly removed by the author User:Darxer in this edit. That is the earliest edit showing removal of in the edit history. At that point, the article certainly looked like patent nonsense to me, and likely would have been speedily deleted if the author had complied with the instructions in the tag. =Axlq 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will accept that he did indeed remove the nonsense tag at the time in the edit that you indicated. The page how ever does not match either criterion of WP:PN: "Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all." (The article very obviously does not match this criterion, as it is grammatical English.) "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." (The fact that we understand that this article is both OR and non-notable, this criterion is obviously not met, as many intelligent people are having no problem making sense of the article.)  So, again, no the article does not match the criteria for patent nonsense; it does however match numerous AfD criteria which have been expressed above.  Now, please can we stop arguing about what kind of delete this article deserves, and just work towards getting it deleted?  On AfD criteria alone, we can have this removed. --Puellanivis 16:29, 17 January 2007 (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.