| Revision as of 06:31, 6 March 2006 editThesquire (talk | contribs)1,993 edits →[]: not patent nonsense, but still should be deleted← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:56, 6 March 2006 edit undoFan-1967 (talk | contribs)21,751 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ****Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as ]. ] 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ****Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as ]. ] 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****I don't think it's ] - 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 {{tl|db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *****I don't think it's ] - 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 {{tl|db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ******Well, if it's not ], it's still wrong. I've added an Accuracy tag on the page. ] 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' ] -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ] -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:56, 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)