Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-verdict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] E-verdict
Basically an advertisement for http://www.e-verdict.com, contributed by the suggestively named editor User:Everdictorg. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Alexa ranking: 715,032, must go. --DelftUser 18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep or merge, Yes, I agree, no advertisment! But keep an article! Don't you think that then e-mail, E-Services, e-democracy, e-government and other "e-" type of articles should be deleted? I agree that an article is a stub, but the main definitions are done correctly, right? Go to SEs and check that. I do not think advertisment (which I have removed and it would not be added again) is the right motivation for article deletion Everdictorg 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, some of those things are actually in common usage. However, a Google search for e-verdict in the absence of your website shows almost no matches (you have to read the actual search results to see that most of the matches have nothing to do with your usage of the word.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, not so many results in the SEs related to "everdict" or "e-verdict", mainly misspellings. However, some authority websites like http://www.ejury.com/attys_terms.html use the term deliberately. Term e-verdict has already been used before: "http://www.davidrowan.com/1998/01/glossary-for-nineties-chapter-5.html" and here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=E-verdict. Moreover, some people in discussion forums and in article comments use term "verdict" to ask other people's opinions: "what is your verdict" - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22what+is+your+verdict%22. But the true and correct term to use would be "electronic verdict" or "e-verdict", because the verdict is announced on internet etc. So, articles e-verdict and verdict should be equal to e-mail and mail without exceptions. Therefore, to my opinion, assuming that the article is without advertisment, it will bring the definitions and will contribute to overall knowledge of wiki. Sincerely, Everdictorg 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, some of those things are actually in common usage. However, a Google search for e-verdict in the absence of your website shows almost no matches (you have to read the actual search results to see that most of the matches have nothing to do with your usage of the word.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per DelftUser. Stifle 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible still to vote for "per nom." even though the article could not be nominated for the same reason anymore: advertisment? Is isn't it enough evidence proving the absence of advertisment and the need for an article I brought up in my above comment? I would also be very thankful to hear other voters and commenters MOTIVATIONS, like Mr. jpgordon∇∆∇∆'s etc. I hope admin will consider analyzing people's motivations before deleting this page. Sincerely, Everdictorg 11:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
