| Revision as of 15:11, 6 March 2006 editAlpha269 (talk | contribs)179 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:14, 6 March 2006 edit undoLightdarkness (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,130 edits →[]: Vote: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Speedy Delete''' as patent nonsense. ] might be chock-full of verb-subject agreement but it would also be patent nonsense. ] 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Delete''' as patent nonsense. ] might be chock-full of verb-subject agreement but it would also be patent nonsense. ] 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' agreed. -- ] 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' agreed. -- ] 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Nonsense --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:14, 6 March 2006
Chewbabyte
No google results for this article - may be a speedy delete candidate as patent nonsense. Either way, it doesn't measure up to Misplaced Pages standards... I cast my vote to Delete --Viridian || (Talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Invented word, and not even a clever one. Fan1967 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Under which criteria for speedy deletion? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Most likely under "patent nonsense" (CSD G1) -- I had considered listing it as a speedy candidate under that criteria, but decided to err on the side of caution and list it here instead. --Viridian || (Talk) 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as Patent nonsense. Fan1967 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's Patent nonsense - it's got things like subject-verb agreement, and as a whole it does make sense while being completely unencyclopedic. Though if you were to tag it {{db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not Patent nonsense, it's still wrong. I've added an Accuracy tag on the page. Fan1967 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's Patent nonsense - it's got things like subject-verb agreement, and as a whole it does make sense while being completely unencyclopedic. Though if you were to tag it {{db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as Patent nonsense. Fan1967 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Most likely under "patent nonsense" (CSD G1) -- I had considered listing it as a speedy candidate under that criteria, but decided to err on the side of caution and list it here instead. --Viridian || (Talk) 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Under which criteria for speedy deletion? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- From the article: "derived from a chat I had with my friend". I don't think I need to say where I stand on this. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I won gold in Athens for sticking my foot up my own ass might be chock-full of verb-subject agreement but it would also be patent nonsense. Deizio 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. -- Alpha269 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonsense --lightdarkness 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)