Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOJV

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KOJV

KOJV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very little content, unreferenced, unencyclopedic. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All hard facts. The content is little because there isn't much more to be said about it. I could find out more info about the folklore soceity and publish it though.

What kind of references would be appropriate? I got the first part from a professor at KOJV and the second part from a dutch webmaster whose guestbook writers used kojv for short. The third part you can ask any Swede about.

Please define encyclopedic content. What does that mean? How can wikipedia content ever be more encyclopedic than this article whilst written and edited by laymen?

--KOJV 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No more than a short list of random verbal coincidences over three or four languages. BTLizard 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The folklore soceity use KOJV for an official short of the eastern-jewish department, that's no more random than any other acronym. Dutch youngsters use KOJV for short in daily communication, with your way of reason many other slang abbreviations like LOL or BRB must also be deleted from Wikipedia. --KOJV 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the neatest WP:COI I've seen in a while - the article creator is User:KOJV. Which makes me wonder whether "KOJV" is ever used as an abbreviation for the German association (and even if they do, their acronym is hardly more notable than their group) or the Swedish saying (which I can't verify). The only non-Wikipedia Ghits I get for KOJV are for something called "Douglas Adams Towel Day". --Charlene 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Now that's interesting because KOJV appears to have contributed to Towel Day here on Wikipedia, which I'd guess deals with the same thing. BTLizard 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to it being a bit unnotable, which is the reason I'm the article creator instead of someone else. But the German association does use KOJV for an abbreviation of their commission, this was told by a professor at the institution. The Swedish saying can be confirmed by any Swede, there are nine million of us so you oughta be able to find at least a couple. If you use Google correctly it actually gives more than ninteen thousand hits on KOJV and even though most of them are traces of myself or Towel Day (hosted at my site) you can find lots of confirmation on the dutch abbreviation and also some other meaning of kojv which a Russian editor could tell us more about. --KOJV 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - even so, there's no need for a Wikipedia article on it. You could search for a lot of things on Google and get nineteen thousand hits and you say yourself it's unnotable, therefore Wikipedia doesn't need it. Will2710 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, delete the entire Wikipedia while you're at it. I've been browsing the Afd and found that hundreds of articles have been deleted, even well informative and longer articles than this one. Thousands of manwork hours goes to waste around here every month. Until now I've thought Wikipedia was a place especially for the not so notable things that can't be easily found at other sources and obviously I was dead beat wrong. --KOJV 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Who the hell creates a disambig page to point to their own user page? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and perhaps do a proper article for the German commission. There are useful things to add to WP, KOJV, if you take it seriously. DGG 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do take WP seriously. But I don't think it should be taken too damn seriously. If people want hyper serious textbook information, they wouldn't use the internet to begin with, they would use an actual encyclopedia. You know, the kind printed on paper in hardbook covers, sold in series by a very nice man who knocks on your door once a month for three years to sell you one cover at a time for a humoungous amount of money. I did believe WP was made for the rock hard info as well as for the stuff you'd intentionally use the internet to lookup and as I think I mentioned further up on this page, I was dead beat wrong. I do however contribute to WP with stuff you wouldn't delete, too. Mostly on the Swedish wiki though, the English wiki already has so many hard working editors who already wrote megabytes about the stuff I know something about. I'm just a bit sad and upset there isn't room here for the not so notable stuff. --KOJV 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it. We do take it pretty seriously here, and you will find that most people here want Wikipedia to be as reliable as other tertiary sources, or feel that we already are. KOJV, there is lots of notable subjects that are still missing. As you have a good grasp on two languages, why not help out with translations. And if you are really bored, you can watch the newbie contributions and help them out. John Vandenberg 04:50, 25 April 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.