Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikibureaucracy

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete from both the article space and the Wikipedia space. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikibureaucracy

Neologism. I think someone's trying to make a WP:POINT. -Satori 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dem grapes iz sour.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Soltak 00:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But it's true! Perhaps it can be moved to Wikimedia. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note: that at this point User:JarlaxleArtemis moved the article to Wikipedia:Wikibureaucracy. At which point the original claim of it being a neologism seems to not matter, and i don't know about the POINT bit. However, voting will continue as usual, along Wikibureaucracy guidelines for another week, while people to-and-fro. In the meantime the article will be completely rewritten, people will make pedantic remarks, the "Votes for deletion" tag will turn anyone off attempting to seriously edit the article, and eventually the outcome will be irrelevant. Yes. This note is a WP:POINT. Please continue. Pengo 01:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as a sidecomment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2; there is a temporary ban active right now...Lectonar 09:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment there have been a few articles in this VfD page over the past month that I have thought salvagable. I rewrote them, or did some editting, and Presto most of the delete votes would change to keep and bobs your uncle, the articles are in! It happens all the time, there are some great editors in Wikipedia. Maybe you can just work on it yourself, move it back where you think it belongs and let the voters here know its been edited. I know I'd take a second (or third) look at it. I just thought the article as it was presented today was a crass attempt to make a point critical of people who might not necessarily deserve it. Good Luck with this article though! Hamster Sandwich 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Calling it crass is a bit harsh. Pengo 02:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Satori. Hamster Sandwich 00:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this sort of stuff rightly belongs in Wikimedia, but this just isn't that well written tbh. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has potential to grow into a proper article in its new namespace. If, however, it's chosen to be deleted, which seems likely at this point, can you please move it to User:Pengo/wb instead of deleting it. Thank you. Pengo 01:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lucky 6.9. --Apyule 05:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Fill out forms 3-A and 92-F, submit to approval to the Regional Corporate Vice-President for Deletion Affairs, wait three to six weeks, and delete. Lord Bob 05:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 06:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Our sockpuppet friends from the mailing list are trolling. Alphax ^τεχ 06:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arghh... Alex.tan 06:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR :) Radiant_>|< 13:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Potentially useful way of describing some Wikipedia processes. If the content needs fixing, fix it. -- Visviva 06:54, 17 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.