Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Context hacking: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Context hacking: Incomplete listing at COPYVIO |
→Context hacking: explaining delete vote |
||
Line 12:
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science|list of Social science-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Comment''' I've gone ahead and completed the listing at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]], (next time finish the job, Acather96.) However, given the notice on the blog itself I suspect that the COPYVIO claim will be shortly overturned. --<span style="border:1px solid #63B8FF; font-weight:bold; color:#23238E; background-color:#D0E7FF;"> [[User:Roninbk|RoninBK]] <sub> [[User talk:Roninbk|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Roninbk|C]] </sub> </span> 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
**Copyright violation or not, I still believe this article lacks any notability for several reasons: the A subpoint is the lack of substance in which to fill the content of the article which demonstrates little research out there. The B subpoint is that there are no credible sources or outlets which have used this phrase. And lastly, the C subpoint is that this new word is used by bascially no sources; and the sources which use it are unverifiable blogs. With respect, [[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]] ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
| |||