Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplicitous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicitous
transwiki wiktionary CoolGuy 06:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't transwiki, it's a copyvio and in some ways not up to the standard of the existing Wiktionary entry anyway. If we don't get consensus to delete here we must list as a copyvio. I see no point for the moment, I think we'll get consensus, but there's nothing stopping others if you think it's good use of your time. Andrewa 07:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright vio. Megan1967 07:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What a waste of people's time silliness like this "article" is. -- Hoary 07:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation and re-create as a Redirect to deception to prevent future creation of dictionary articles on this adjective. Uncle G 12:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- Comment: If that's what you want to do, then I think that you should vote keep and raise this as a copyvio. Delete means we don't want an article on this at all. IMO neither this proposed redirect nor the more grammatical one we could have from duplicity is useful, so no change of vote. Andrewa 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- WP:GVFD#Votes. "Delete" in the context of "Delete and re-create as redirect" means that my opinion is that the closing administrator should hit that "delete" tab, but instead of doing all of the other related parts of the deletion process (deleting talk pages, deleting redirects, removing redlinks, and so forth) should instead then immediately create a redirect in place of the previous article. Given the lack of links to this article, the redirect isn't all that important. Furthermore: It would be wrong to vote keep with the rationale that something is a copyright violation. Voting keep and then listing on WP:CP would be self-contradictory, moreover, since the latter is another way of nominating an article for deletion, and one would be pressing to keep and to delete an article simultaneously. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- Comment: (Sigh) the problem here I think is that we are not entirely consistent with our treatment of copyvios. On the one hand we take a great deal of trouble in handling those that are listed on the copyvio page, so as to leave a clean history, while on the other there is no mechanism for removing old copyvios from histories, nor any demand for one. This is historical. I see no inconsistency in what I suggested, in that delete in the context of VfD has a different meaning to deletion on the copyvio page. But if it worries you, you'll need to find another way. Yours is as good as any I guess, IMO it complicates the procedure needlessly, but I respect your view. All the best. Andrewa 19:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- WP:GVFD#Votes. "Delete" in the context of "Delete and re-create as redirect" means that my opinion is that the closing administrator should hit that "delete" tab, but instead of doing all of the other related parts of the deletion process (deleting talk pages, deleting redirects, removing redlinks, and so forth) should instead then immediately create a redirect in place of the previous article. Given the lack of links to this article, the redirect isn't all that important. Furthermore: It would be wrong to vote keep with the rationale that something is a copyright violation. Voting keep and then listing on WP:CP would be self-contradictory, moreover, since the latter is another way of nominating an article for deletion, and one would be pressing to keep and to delete an article simultaneously. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- Comment: If that's what you want to do, then I think that you should vote keep and raise this as a copyvio. Delete means we don't want an article on this at all. IMO neither this proposed redirect nor the more grammatical one we could have from duplicity is useful, so no change of vote. Andrewa 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
