Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waste of information


 * 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. SNOW/DICDEF j⚛e deckertalk 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Waste of information

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Dictionary definition. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete It's practically not even a dictionary definition; I'm having trouble parsing out what it is even supposed to mean. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway....-> Carrite (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, does anyone else find it pretty funny that the article about waste of information is, itself, a waste of information? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I wonder if the entire point of this page was to be a self-referencing joke. Anyway, it's a dictionary definition and therefore should go. Dtm1234 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Criterion G1 (WP:NONSENSE) --BDD (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'd like to redirect this to Waste of information, I think the per-policy choice is delete as unencyclopedic waste of information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. Even if it was edited to be coherent, it still doesn't look notable. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – I've found some instances in which this phrase is used, but no coverage in reliable sources about it whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete useless DICDEF. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 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.