Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 2 January 2006

Nyk

nonsense, neologism, Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day at school etc. Kuzaar 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete n Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense, neologism. __earth 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unsalvageable nonsense --Muchness 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete as nn made-up neologism, with apologies. --Muchness 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article condemns itself to speedy deletion. And if the first listed reason isn't enough, then I add that it's pure vanity; someone wanted to get their names in Wikipedia. GestaltG 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, I was using the term in an unprofessional way. I have looked at the speedy deletion page. GestaltG 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells us that two schoolchildren have made up a word, and that no-one uses it apart from a few of their friends and their mother. It also gives us a detailed historical account of the activities of some schoolchildren that is obviously from firsthand knowledge. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This article is both unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted--Bookandcoffee 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No delete. I bellieve this could eventually get around and become a big thing. Yeah, its foolish, but werent all the other 4 letter "bad" words in the dictionary?

I think that the word Nyk should be kept on Wikipedia. I happen to know these kids who put this here and there just trying to do the same thing Paris Hilton is doing with "That's hot." They come from a very small town and have no other way to get it out there.

I would note that the previous comments were posted by user Jake Lykins, one of the kids mentioned in the article. Jake, Wikipedia is not a medium for you to try to make a word that you or your friends invented catch on and become a national phenomenon. Wikipedia is in no way comparable to the media outlets available to Paris Hilton, and you certainly are not in the same celeberty class as Paris Hilton. I am sure that you are not nearly as cute, and you probably have a lot more brains. If you want to make a phrase "cool" become famous, but don't try to use Wikipedia to promote words that you made up at school one day. I suggest you read the previous link to understand why this is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about compiling the "sum of all human knowledge" to which your entry does not contribute in any significant way. GestaltG 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GestaltG! I am smarter than Paris Hilton! If you have any idea on how to get Nyk to be a big phrase, other than getting famous, please tell me, because I beleive that it could be a big thing one day. I really don't know any other way to do that. I don't think I could get famous. I'm just an odd kid from Wheatcroft, Ky. I understand that it's not good to try to market Nyk by putting it on Wikipedia after I read all of that stuff. But I have hope in Nyk, and you, yes YOU, will hear Nyk one day or see it wrote on a shirt, and you will remember this. I may not become famous, but Nyk will!

In my own personal opinion, there are some things on wikipedia other than "Nyk" that do not contribute to human Knowledge. If you look up "The Game" you will find a useless rule setting for a game that is so simplistic that it must have been made up by someone. Now... If wikipedia is truly the sum of ALL human Knowledge... then even the simple words made up by people were contributed to human Knowledge. "The game" is much more idiotic than "Nyk." So, do not delete.
- If there is such an entry, then move it for deletion. But don't drag Wikipedia down by trying to twist this argument into something it is not. It may work at home to say, "See, what I didn't wasn't bad because he did something worse!," but that does not apply to this particlar debate here (which is what you are trying to do) because we are not talking about morals or right and wrong in that sense, but rather, what is encyclopedic and what is not. GestaltG 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you like me? HUH!? What did I do? I bet you are going to start using Nyk! You know why? BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!

Ah yes, we could see this coming; the petty self-centered juvenile outburst. GestaltG 07:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, not to be too contradictingg to what you are sayingg, but if this is not about morales, then take out all the religious articles. They are all about morales, and in my opinion they are not required to be in the encyclopedia. Now, jake is having outbursts, but i am trying to show you that wikipedia does have entries not relevant to human knowledge.
- I am not going to spend days arguing about this, I am busy editing. But if you think "morals" not part of the sum of human knowledge, whether in the form of religion or philosophies, then you should go back to school and learn something. What I said was that Jake could not use the argument that "you can't delete my article because there are more worthless articles" (similar to "I didn't do anything bad because he did something worse" type arguments you use at home) here because the standard here is what is encyclopedic. If you don't understand what is encyclopedic, do some research on Wikipedia's standards. This argument is not going to go on and on, because, first, this is the last time I am going to respond to your kids arguments, and second, an admin (and I am not an admin, so you are arguing with the wrong person) will eventually make a decision to delete your silly article, and that will be the end of it. GestaltG 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:36, 2 January 2006 edit Travis poe1225 (talk \| contribs) 21 edits →‎[[Nyk]] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:45, 2 January 2006 edit undo GestaltG (talk \| contribs) 326 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	*um, not to be too contradictingg to what you are sayingg, but if this is not about morales, then take out all the religious articles. They are all about morales, and in my opinion they are not required to be in the encyclopedia. Now, jake is having outbursts, but i am trying to show you that wikipedia does have entries not relevant to human knowledge.		*um, not to be too contradictingg to what you are sayingg, but if this is not about morales, then take out all the religious articles. They are all about morales, and in my opinion they are not required to be in the encyclopedia. Now, jake is having outbursts, but i am trying to show you that wikipedia does have entries not relevant to human knowledge.
			**I am not going to spend days arguing about this, I am busy editing. But if you think "morals" not part of the sum of human knowledge, whether in the form of religion or philosophies, then you should go back to school and learn something. What I said was that Jake could not use the argument that "you can't delete my article because there are more worthless articles" (similar to "I didn't do anything bad because he did something worse" type arguments you use at home) here because the standard here is what is encyclopedic. If you don't understand what is encyclopedic, do some research on Wikipedia's standards. This argument is not going to go on and on, because, first, this is the last time I am going to respond to your kids arguments, and second, an admin (and I am not an admin, so you are arguing with the wrong person) will eventually make a decision to delete your silly article, and that will be the end of it. [[User:GestaltG\|GestaltG]] 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)