Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to survive on a deserted island
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. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A strong and unanimous consensus leads to an early closure under the snowball clause. ~ mazca talk 18:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How to survive on a deserted island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:NOTGUIDE. Deprodded by the author. GregorB (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete blatant original research. --Oscarthecat (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. andy (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:SD#1 - Patent nonsense. Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poorly written, unsourced, OR that violates more than one category. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitely not patent nonsense, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Jafeluv (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Have you ever wondered how to survive a Wikipedia deletion discussion? Violating WP:OR and WP:HOWTO will not help your cause. Eauhomme (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New editor and first contribution to Wikipedia, so he/she can be forgiven for not being aware of the various policies. Other than the unnecessarily mean comments about writing skills, they are correct that this is "OR" or "original research" (the term for an article that is not based on research of verifiable sources), and Wikipedia has a policy against "how to" articles. Although this one won't fly, you have just as much of a right to contribute as anybody else in this discussion. Welcome to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant this to be on the editor's talk page - it's a bit late to welcome the rest of us to wikipedia or to explain what OR is! andy (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have something that you want to address directly to me, you're welcome to comment on my talk page, Andy. Most newcomers to Wikipedia don't know what "original research" means, and it takes time to learn the rules. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that your principal activity on WP is related to AFDs. Also that you have been reprimanded on several occasions for incivility to other editors, including being reported at ANI. Please don't compound the issue. A !vote for delete or keep would have been helpful, as would have been an informed and informative comment. The comment you actually made is totally unhelpful and somewhat troll-like. andy (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford's past is irrelevant. The "comment" he made above is exactly the type of polite and helpful comment we WANT in AfD. He actually looked into the creating editor's history, and will go a long way to soothing a possibly pissed off new editor so that the AfD is a lot less WP:BITEy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA much or is this a special occasion? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Special occasion - the second time he's been confrontational to me when he didn't like my comments at AfD. However, this is the wrong forum. andy (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to think that I learned my lesson about civility a long time ago. One thing I try to avoid is letting someone make me angry. I can only say that you are starting to make me angry, and this is not the place. Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that your principal activity on WP is related to AFDs. Also that you have been reprimanded on several occasions for incivility to other editors, including being reported at ANI. Please don't compound the issue. A !vote for delete or keep would have been helpful, as would have been an informed and informative comment. The comment you actually made is totally unhelpful and somewhat troll-like. andy (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have something that you want to address directly to me, you're welcome to comment on my talk page, Andy. Most newcomers to Wikipedia don't know what "original research" means, and it takes time to learn the rules. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Snow delete? andy (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT I have advised the creator of the article of this AfD ... please ensure that all creating editors (especially new ones) are provided with links to the AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that English may not be the authors first language. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (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.