Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinap
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 was delete. KrakatoaKatie 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikinap
WP:NEO issues, and wikipedia is not a dictionary Pharmboy (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or WP:USERFY: delete based on WP:NEO with no real usage outside the single incident mentioned; or WP:USERFY since it's an little personal essay with no real meaning beyond wikipedia culture. Yngvarr 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. I second Yngvarrr's opinion, but we could be it an essay or something as well. WP:Take a wikinap or whatnot. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I've seen it used before, but this is simply the first time it's been codified. An essay on the same subject would also be appropriate if not kept. — BQZip01 — talk 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- 2cents I am wondering if we are being a bit lenient with the term because we are wikipedians, perhaps? Not used to seeing NEO candidates handles so gingerly. Pharmboy (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For me, I don't think that's the case. There are many essays in the Category:Wikipedia essays which probably started as a germ of an idea, written in userspace. I'm not endorsing this be cat'ed into the WP namespace, just rather userfy it. I was going to say it's "cute", but I figured that the word "cute" might be taken condescendingly. I'm just offering an alternate opinion, and having it in userspace is quite different than having it in WPspace. Yngvarr 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- 3c I understand putting it in userspace, and have no issue with that. I was just noticing that we editors are less likely to jump up and quickly label it NEO or simply vote delete when it is Wikipedia related. I am not saying I am immune either, it was just an observation. Pharmboy (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For me, I don't think that's the case. There are many essays in the Category:Wikipedia essays which probably started as a germ of an idea, written in userspace. I'm not endorsing this be cat'ed into the WP namespace, just rather userfy it. I was going to say it's "cute", but I figured that the word "cute" might be taken condescendingly. I'm just offering an alternate opinion, and having it in userspace is quite different than having it in WPspace. Yngvarr 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- 2cents I am wondering if we are being a bit lenient with the term because we are wikipedians, perhaps? Not used to seeing NEO candidates handles so gingerly. Pharmboy (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as self-referential neologism with no references. If someone wants to move it to userspace as an essay, that's fine, but it's not encyclopedic at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- USERFY if creator wants it, otherwiseDelete per WP:NEO Hobit (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Tony Fox. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy Not notable enough to be on mainspace. I think I'll go get one now :)--Lenticel (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Userfy. Per all above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Snowball delete. Keep this sort of stuff out of the mainspace.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia:Wikinap, or merge into Wikipedia:Wikibreak. - Koweja (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... my page, looks like delete -- fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (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.
