Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnist
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I count three keeps, four deletes (including the nominator), and a troll. Absent a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Omnist[edit]
Chaotic essay that basically compiles a bunch of dicdefs. There should probably be an article on this, but not this article. Radiant! 13:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps then we should keep it and put a cleanup tag on it. While I generally agree with you, at least the existing article is a starting point and not patent nonsense. HyperZonktalk 17:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Writing a bad article and waiting for others to expand or clean it is not, IMHO, the proper way to indicate that some subject is relevant for Wikipedia. However, I am inclined in this case to concur with Hyperzonk that this should be sent to Cleanup. vlad_mv 20:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The point of VfD is to delete articles that can never become encyclopedic. This one looks like it could. Isomorphic 20:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: essay. I do agree that there could be an article titled "omnist". However, it could only be written by junking the existing content. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewitten. - Mike Rosoft 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.