Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case against spelling reforms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 speedy delete. (G12) Fullstop is fully right in his assessment. Material is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. This is a clear copyright violation. Mgm|(talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Case against spelling reforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I just declined a speedy on this one but it is so riddled with problems that I am sending it straight to WP:AFD. The article is unencyclopaedic original research, fails to maintain any semblance of a neutral point of view and appears to be designed to further a particular cause. Nancy talk 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G12. Its a copyvio of this, and I had {{db-copyvio}}'d it as such. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Shame we don't have a speedy criterion for this type of essay. RayAYang (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, and biased. It's not a copyvio because the blog its copied from is not copyrighted. It would be nice to have a csd criteria for these things, but I imagine it would be more trouble than its worth--Jac16888 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem! The lack of a copyright statement is not a copyright waiver. The contents must have been explicitly released under the terms of the GFDL (or compatible) for them to be re-released under the GFDL. Wikipedia can't give away the rights to something that it hasn't explicitly received the rights for. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay, and not a very good one at that - the way it's written, it almost seems to flipflop between being an argument for the evolution of language, an argument against thereof, and seeming confusion as to why people don't just deal with it - along with the generally confused overtones. On top of this, it notes something called "See Beyond Words", whatever that is. It's certainly soapy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (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.