Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIO Vocabulary

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 --JForget 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Vocabulary[edit]

Where to begin....? It's mostly an somewhat random list of terms and definitions that might be useful to someone in a CIO position. No indications at all of why terms might or might not be on the list. In general a big mess, and I really don't see much worth the effort to salvage. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined a speedy on this, but I've been wrestling over whether to prod it myself. If kept, it should be moved to Glossary of CIO terms, cleaned up, and made to conform to MOS:LIST. But then there's the issue of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria: "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria." What unambiguous membership criteria can you state? Without that, I have to say delete.

Delete I put in a G2 tag when this was an exact copy from the sandbox (there was other Sandbox text in the article then) , thinking that the author brought it online ahead of schedule. Looking at it now, I'd still say that. It's a random unreferenced list of words, software names, processes etc. Too broad in score for a list, not article material. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vaguely defined, potentially unlimited and ultimately unencyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR, WP:LC, WP:SALAT, and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:OR and general non-encylopedic style is chronic. --Triwbe (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Abce2|AccessDenied 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ - The lead section appears to infringe the copyright of this eWeek article. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The copyvio seems to be limited to the lead section. I have made the lead section a div and listed the page at WP:Copyright problems/2009 June 7. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete even converted to a proper List this would not do much more than a :Cat. I like the idea of bringing them to a list, but this is not the way to do it, IMO. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:13, 7 June 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.