Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-paradigmal theory
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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur completely. Anything that pretends to link chaos magic with XML programming seems too indefinite to have any explanatory or predictive value. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Essay. Moreschi 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Its really is WP:BOLLOCKS scope_creep 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoooh I've had a quick look and the originator has only produced two articles, this one and Meta-paradigm. From the style of the entry they clearly are new and I would not like yet again to see the AfD Delete, Delete song as someone's Welcome! So, lets not be too hasty! On the other hand, there have been various comments on the article. My suspicion is that this article is just someone's opinion, whilst the Meta-paradigm seems to have some references and might therefore be improved. Therefore perhaps what can be salvaged from this article should be added to the Meta-Paradigm--Mike 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm happy to join you in holding the horses, but this needs some references quick to show me it isn't either (at best) original research or (at worst) complete BS. Robovski 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it needs a complete overhaul, and perhaps a move to Paradigm_piracy. - Tsuzuki26 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm happy to join you in holding the horses, but this needs some references quick to show me it isn't either (at best) original research or (at worst) complete BS. Robovski 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - endearingly bizarre, but codswallop nonetheless. Tpth 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Postmodernist navel-gazing. I would also point out what I did in the AFD for meta-paradigm -- the concept of paradigm is a hard enough one to validate. This is going way off into the weeds, and puts the cart before the horse. Haikupoet 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete BS. I LOLed when I saw XML mixed in. Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this one and it looks like nonsense Yuckfoo 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.