Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PiALOGUE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] PiALOGUE
No evidence for existence of this unlikely idea; neologism? Flapdragon 09:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, incomprehensible, unverified, and likely vanity. Gazpacho 09:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Added external link references. PiPhD 10:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Fredrik | tc 11:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- What about it do you not understand? PiPhD 11:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverified. The external links point to a 404 Error page, a web forum, and what seems to be a personal web site. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's clear to me, I was on the Bohm Dialogue mailing list when the "pialogue" issue came up and feel that it is an accurate description of a useful communication tool. And, ALL of the links work for me. -- Heuristic 14:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn neologism, see Google. Melchoir 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this seems to be complete nonsense. Tompw 23:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC).
- Wiktionary? PiPhD 22:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem would still be with the "nonsense" bit. Flapdragon 15:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does not "nonsense" convey "opinion"? Who is the highest level intellect at Wikipedia who is respected such that they could or would "rule" upon whether or not it is nonsense? PiPhD
- The community is. Fredrik | tc 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is not the "administrator" the final arbitor with actual "delete" capability? How can the appearance of democracy demonstrated by the "loud few" (out of literally millions) be actual democracy? Actual truth? So, my real question is, who is the most intelligent "administrator" who would be "able" to determine whther or not it actually makes sense and who would perform the actual deletion? Or, are or might the people who used the word "nonsense" actually be the same person with multiple accounts? Is there a way to determine this possibility? -- PiPhD 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not them, and it's nonsense. Melchoir 03:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is not the "administrator" the final arbitor with actual "delete" capability? How can the appearance of democracy demonstrated by the "loud few" (out of literally millions) be actual democracy? Actual truth? So, my real question is, who is the most intelligent "administrator" who would be "able" to determine whther or not it actually makes sense and who would perform the actual deletion? Or, are or might the people who used the word "nonsense" actually be the same person with multiple accounts? Is there a way to determine this possibility? -- PiPhD 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The community is. Fredrik | tc 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does not "nonsense" convey "opinion"? Who is the highest level intellect at Wikipedia who is respected such that they could or would "rule" upon whether or not it is nonsense? PiPhD
- The problem would still be with the "nonsense" bit. Flapdragon 15:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rodin Aerodynamics utilizes PiALOGUE (bottom of page) -- PiPhD 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- More of the same. Melchoir 03:35, 14 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
