Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries

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 as G7.

Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries[edit]

Editor User:ArmchairVexillologistDon (now User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!) has been trying to add his personal opinions regarding what he feels are the "proper" names for Canada, the Canadian provinces, and other similar material to articles for months/years, despite strong opposition from other editors. This has included repeated attempts to add his terms to the various articles, as well as his continued and extensive dialogues on the related talk pages. This article serves only as an extension of that goal. Ckatz^chat _spy 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I’m sorry if I am misreading this piece, and please tell me if I have, but what I see is that this is an article about a proposed article that may or may not be written. I would say delete under Crystal. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear that this article got past the stated intent ("This article will provide a basis to summarize the Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries. Additionally, this article will deal with Names the sub-units of the constitutent-Countries, and if conquered and/or partitioned, its 'successor-States'.") That's just as well. This isn't the subject for an article. Wikipedia does have a manual of style at WP:MOS and if conventions aren't summarized there, then I would consider it to be free market-- i.e., that the editors can correct "Communist China" to People's Republic of China. One person's thoughts about conventions for long-form and short-form names are just those-- one person's thoughts. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unencyclopedic material and I really don't understand what is going on within the article. Not necessary for Wikipedia... Tavix (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Sorry Don but this appears to be headed nowhere except possibly original research. If an article that meets Core content policies is possible, I suggest writing it in your sandbox first. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it easy for you folkes. Just delete the article today.

Bye-the-way, don't expect me to try to contribute any article, ever again.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are one person out of over 150,000 active contributors. We are not going to save one article that fails WP standards just to keep you around. If that's the way you want it, leave now. Tavix (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 as author requested deletion. Tavix (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello, I just want to let you know that I reverted your decision to remove my comment I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries. If you don't like my comment that I made, then comment about it, but it is extremely rude to delete someones comment because you don't like it. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Tavix, first, as I stated in my editorial summary when I removed your remarks; "... all contributors are valued" and then went on to say; "... unless intentional disruptive". I believe your comments are intentional disruptive. They serve no purpose other than to belittle and marginalize the efforts of the original author. This, by my standards is unacceptable. I will let your comments stand, however, I will post these remarks under your comments, on the discussion page, which I believe is a fair compromise. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disagree as it is a logical response to an editor who makes a threat to leave if his precious article is deleted. People's articles get deleted all the time, and it is not a reason to leave. What I find highly disruptive, however, is the fact that you decided to remove my comments. That is extremely inappropriate and rude. Tavix (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responce - Hmmmm- Lets see here, you had one logical response, to the situation, as noted above, and I had , what I thought, was a logical response, at least in my mind. Who is right and who is more right? Does it matter? All I ask is that you take a second before responding and think of how that may be taken by a third party. Fair enough? I apologize. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:08, 27 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.