Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperwaving
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. --Deathphoenix 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paperwaving
Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Not worth saving in any event, Google returns 33 hits. Vslashg 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I would say redirect to pseudoscience but it doesn't seem like a widely used enough term. Peyna 18:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Google actually only returns 23 hits in English, and only 6 of those 23 hits are unique and of those 6 unique hits, not one of them refers to what this article is talking about, but instead, to people actually waving pieces of paper to try to help prove their point. Peyna 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- changed my vote to Delete Jakken 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dicdef, neologism, unnotable. Take your pick. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP the content (transfer the content, or at the very least reference the term in pseudoscience and/or fallacy, and redirect). Obey 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the above arguments to keep are paperwaving. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok...should this then be regarded as actually a KEEP vote, or disregard it as disrupting to make a point or as an odd little ad hominem? Obey 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- My vote was to delete, not to keep. No personal attacks, please. Stifle 16:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- WP defn of irony: requesting observation of NPA in response to an initial comment wondering whether a personal attack has been made. To start afresh: it seems to me that characterising a mild suggestion to retain the content of the article somewhere (rather than assigned to oblivion entirely), as "paperwaving", is off hand; a flippant and unconstructive rejection of another's POV. And the explanation itself didn't seem very considered: "paperwaving" is the subject matter of the very article under consideration for deletion. So now that we have established that no one is making personal attacks, can you explain your vote to delete, if it is not a vote to keep? Obey 11:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Stifle's initial comment was not a personal attack, unless articles have turned into persons. I wouldn't say your response to his comment was a personal attack either. Peyna 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely: flippant and internally inconsistent rejections of constructive suggestions are something else altogether. I've already supplied two other possibilities. Just awaiting now an explanation in response to my last (not that it can make much difference to the outcome seeing the numbers). Obey 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok...should this then be regarded as actually a KEEP vote, or disregard it as disrupting to make a point or as an odd little ad hominem? Obey 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Any reassessments in view of recent changes? If not, I change sides. Obey 16:53, 29 January 2006 (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.
