Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unithetical Linguistics


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unithetical Linguistics

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

Delete per WP:NOR.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Also brushes up against WP:NPOV  Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR. Stephen Turner (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Kubek15 (Talk) ]] $4 • (Sign!)  •  (What I've done) |undefined 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio of Blueboy96 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's an unsourced essay. I appreciate that Blueboy has tracked down where this came from; I disagree that it's a copyvio, because blogs aren't copyrighted.  It's not plagiarism, since it appears that Nikson thought it might be a good idea to make an article out of one of his blog articles (or vice versa).  But it's an essay, with no sourcing.  That's all right for your personal blog; it isn't all right for an online encyclopedia.  Suggestion to Nikson is to look for and contribute to (with sources) articles on the subject of Qu'ranic translation, which, like Biblical translation, is an important topic.  Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogs are certainly copyrighted. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That blog entry was created by "Nikson", and the creator of this article is User:Nikson Paak. It seems plausible that the two authors are the same person. It is not a copyvio if the article's creator also posted it to Wikipedia under the GFDL. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, blogs are subject to copyright. This one isn't. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - per WP:NOR. Canyouhearmenow 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this is Original research if I ever saw one. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. I am at a loss to even guess what unithetical might mean.  Seems to be about Qur'an translations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with everyone else who voted Delete. I'm wondering what Unithetical is supposed to mean too! 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably that it's thetical but not polythetical? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:00, 28 February 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.