Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uclides

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. — Aitias // discussion 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uclides[edit]

Apparent POV fork of our article on Euclid. Though I question the verifiability and the sourcing of the article content, that would be something to discuss if the material were being proposed as part of the Euclid article. For the moment, only the creation of a duplicate article is at issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston proposed a deltion of this wiki on the 16th stateing it is a fork - which it is not. Even though he is not considering the fact that the wiki got reworked today (6 hrs ago) completely and im open for ideas of enhancment. No content present in Uclides wiki is in Euclid or Elements. I added it there but it got remvoed - even the word Uclides is not mentioned anywhere. The source and publication is linked and valid. --Tales23 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete this rather odd-fork using an unknown (invented?) alternative spelling of a rather famous historical figure in an attempt to have a mirror article, towards what end it's not clear. But what is clear is that it's not encyclopedic and fails a number of policies. Not sure whey this can't be speedied.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be which policies? --Tales23 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters? WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:COATRACK WP:V WP:NOTE WP:CFORK. I'm sure i could come up with some more if i put my back into it, but why bother?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay-like article going on at undue length about an unimportant change in transliteration. We are writing the English Wikipedia, we use spellings of terms and names as they are commonly given in English, in this case the proper spelling is "Euclid" regardless of how inaccurately that might render his proper ancient Greek name, and more to the point there is no reliable sourcing for notability of any kind of controversy over the spelling. I don't see a lot of justification for a speedy but maybe we can snowball this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: textbook example of a fork. A paragraph which User:Tales23 had worked on was removed from Euclid's Elements [1] (last deleted paragraph) so Tales23 immediately created an article consisting of that paragraph, [2] and then added some redundant material from the Euclid article to make the new Uclides look like a normal article. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you google you will find more idependently sources. Anyway as nobody else seems to be intrested in this i thought of living the decision up to you guys, the administrators. I want mind if you edit my wiki or use parts of it whatever ...--Tales23 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing your earlier attack on the sanity of the rest of us, Tales23.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--the editors above have said it well enough: POV fork, mirror, etc. The accusation that we amputate ourselves of/from reason, or that nay-voters are terrorists, well, I can live with that: I've been called worse. Time for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Paul August ☎ 00:17, 22 January 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.