Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiconstitution

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 19:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiconstitution

Obviously not an encylopedia article, and not approriate for a project trying to write one. However, it is not a speedy, which is why I undeleted it and listed it here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unencyclopedic. This might be an interestign project for soem wiki, but not wikipedia, and particularly not in the article space. DES (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an attempt to use the wiki process to create a constitution for a country. This is canonical Wikipedia is not a free wiki host territory. The author is encouraged to read our Wiki Science wikibook on how to set up and run xyr own wiki. Delete. Uncle G 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and mention at WikiMedia:Press clippings. Gazpacho 02:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    No vote change, but some of the diffs might be BJAODNable. Gazpacho 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gazpacho. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a project not an encyclopedia article Glaurung 08:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete It might be possible to view this article as a primary source on the concept of a wikiconstitution -- which, having been referenced in The Onion, may enter the lexicon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.59.134 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 October 2005
    • But this article doesn't describe what such a constitution is, it tries to be an example of it. And wikipedia is not supposed to be the place for Primary sources -- it is supposed to be a tertiary source, referencing primary and secondary sources. DES (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • True.
  • Undelete People seem to be getting a lot of joy out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.59.134 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 October 2005
  • Delete. Ambi 07:20, 8 October 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.