Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An intelligent: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:
*'''delete''' [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 08:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''' [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 08:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''' and merge with [[Intelligentsia]] (if there is any6thing worth merging)... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 09:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''' and merge with [[Intelligentsia]] (if there is any6thing worth merging)... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 09:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' [[User:Shillori|Shillori]] 12:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:26, 16 September 2005

This is not an English language term, and in fact is a violation of English grammar. It should be merged and redirected to Intelligentsia, but every time I try that, User:LevKamensky keeps reverting me. Delete. Don't even transwiki to Wiktionary, since it isn't an English term. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jumps curiously between first, second and third persons -- both singular and plural... paul klenk 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Molotov (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism in English, with no actual currency. -- MCB 23:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What User:Zoe fails to consider, [personal attack removed], is that this is not an English dictionary, this is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to inform and entertain. Individuality is encouraged, and users are even encouraged to spell creatively as stated on the front page. I have been working hard making contributions, while User: Zoe apparently (from a superficial glance at his discussion page) has been working hard vandalizing others’ contributions. There are many words that are not English, but were borrowed from other languages because they are important concepts that are impossible to substitute, such words as dacha, perestroika etc. ‘’’An intelligent’’’ is a unique irreplaceable concept, and therefore deserves a place in this resource. I am qualified to make this assessment because I was raised in the former USSR, and my family belongs to the intelligentsia class. I am also an English writer and poet. The authors of the intelligentsia article are students from India, whose idea of the term is extremely vague and superficial, and frankly the article is amateurish. But unlike User:Zoe I appreciate various perspectives, that give the reader more food for thought. An intelligent (like serf for example) is a type of person, that does not exist in English speaking countries, the term was not widely known here. And the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to reiterate already known facts. I believe User:Zoe came here with the wrong motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevKamensky (talkcontribs) 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least I'm neither making personal attacks, nor assuming ill will, nor am I vandalizing pages by deleting mergeto headers. And why are you calling me "he"? User Talk:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You would censor me for not using "he or she", your gender was not evident to me, maybe that's why. Vandalizing my own work, can't beat logic! The point is this, Wikipedia's policy is very flexible and you are running around, looking for a problem to fix where there is none. So my conclusion is that you are, not being constructive, but rather selfish, and should be banned from this resource because you are a hindrance to the creative process.User:LevKamensky