Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xp fonts displaying other languages
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. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Xp fonts displaying other languages
I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a hacking message board. OR. Daniel Case 03:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a repository for Windoze technical support. Ruby 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)- Changing vote to Keep to hold up my end of a bargain after the article was supported with source material. Ruby 08:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. --Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, WP is for passing on human knowledge. Just show me a link to your source so it can be verified as not being original research, and I'll change it to a Keeper. Ruby 04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[1] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.
- Delete. Even if cleaned up, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Vslashg 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. --Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Original research, unencylopedic, take your pick. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The talk page now says, nothing exists elsewhere that explains how to manage this in a plain instructive manner.. That sounds like the very definition of original research to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Dbinder 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopaedic, per WP:NOT. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 20:37, 28 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.
