Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinklets

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinklets[edit]

Delete - The article as written now is either incoherent or at least not written at a level suitable for an introductory treatment of its subject matter. Moreover, it's difficult to see *how* this article *could* be reformed, given the obscurity of its topic (and related verifiability and original research concerns). Pop Secret 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stub with potential. Royboy crashfan 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is just gibberish. Take a look at the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be expanded, referred to peer review, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take a look at the history of the creator, RJBurkhart (talk · contribs). This is pure gibberish, a stream of random, tenuously-connected ideas passed off as a topic, one of several similar "articles" written by this editor. There's no potential for expansion other than more gibberish. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never considered this, and therefore, you may be right. However, for now, my vote is going to remain keep. I believe that there is possible hope for the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a hoax, a parody of business jargon. I suspect the author is just trying to have fun tricking people into thinking that a bunch of gibberish has meaning. Several of the bluelinks either go to redirects or link to articles with no clear connection to the piped link name. The external links that I followed didn't contain the term. Neutral, see below. --Allen 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article does read like a parody of business/computer jargon, but it appears not to be a hoax. See, e.g. [1]. Moreover, the term gets quite a few (seemingly) relevant web hits. On the other hand, it might be neologism/OR. dbtfz^talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, yeah, I guess you're right. Plus, if it was a joke, the author probably wouldn't have made a zillion edits to it. And if that paper is indeed real, it's not strictly OR either. I guess I'd better take back my vote, although I still feel like Thinklets is laughing at me. --Allen 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thinklets don't laugh; they exhibit Actionable Distilled Jocularity. dbtfz ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this is a just a joke. Sentences like "A thinkLet's social capital value proposition may be assessed by its distributed application as either an Actionable Distilled Insight or Reusable Learning Object." sound like something from the Pointy Haired Boss from the Dilbert comic strip. Even if it isn't a joke, it's written like jibberish and has no encyclopedic value (i.e. it doesn't even explain what a "Thinklet" is). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so full of jargon as to be unredeemable. Flush this turd, and eliminate

its stench from Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure whether this is unredeemable gibberish, or a hoax. I kind of suspect it's a parody, but I'm kind of afraid it's not. Maybe BJAODN it? Fan1967 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BJAODN is often thrown around too lightly, but if this gets deleted, I think it would make for a classic BJAODN. --Allen 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to BJAODN. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed.
Keep per Eternal Equinox. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recon0 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been watching this article since it was written, and it has only gotten worse. (Well, not entirely - for a while the term "thinklet" was never even defined.) This is apparently one guy's neologism, and the article was created by someone who attended a seminar where it was mentioned. The chance of expanding (yikes) or improving it appear minimal. -Will Beback 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but extreme stubify or mark for complete rewrite. I find that it is impossible to understand gibberish, but I verified that the Hawaii conference listed as a source does exist and did have presentations on this topic in 2004. So I don't think deleting is the answer. However, Wikipedia should aspire to significantly greater readability so we should somehow "send back" the article for a complete rewrite. By the way, I tried to read the first page of that 2004 presentation on thinklets, and while it is less gibberish than our article, I did not end up any wiser. I still have no idea what thinklets are, and hereby retreat licking my wounds from my attempt to sofixit. Martinp 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: I'm sending this to Article Heaven (or Limbo, or Nirvana, or whatever) and may it find peace over there. "Extreme stubbification" is not an option, given that it's impossible to get anything coherent from this article. Out of respect for serious marketspeakers I won't send thins to BJAODN, though it would certainly fit in there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (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.