Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (word)

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 - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No (word)

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above MadCow257 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yes (word). Hardly even a valid stub at this point, but a redirect would allow someone to expand it later. --Allen 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to be joking. Redirect "No" to "Yes"? Is this opposites day? --Hyperbole 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As they're both up for deletion, perhaps we should redirect each one to the other. The resulting endless loop would be fun for the whole family. --Xyzzyplugh 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As long as we're in Bizarro World, does "delete" actually mean "keep"?  :-) dbtfz^talk 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Redirecting 'No' to 'Yes' makes a certain amount of syllogistic sense, but no-one can be seriously suggesting redirecting 'Yes' to 'No'? 'Yes' must be redirected to 'Possibly'. Surely thats obvious even to a layman? Oh, and delete by the way. Marcus22 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't need to be transwikied; Wictionary has a perfectly fine entry for "no." --Hyperbole 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No thanks. See above op for "yes", Delete. Deizio 01:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wiktionary already has extensive articles on both 'no' and 'yes'. --Hetar 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Royboycrashfan 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete why are we even debating this :( M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No this shouldn't be kept.
• Delete as dicdef. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki.Vizjim 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. feydey 12:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its really just a dictionary article and little more than a line can be written on this page. Kyle sb 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I have to say this: no means no. Durova 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect and merge with Yes (word) for reasons stated there. Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Replace with soft redirect to wiktionary Night Gyr 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reason that this could be expanded way past a dict-def. ---J.Smith 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep If Non- English words can have articles, then this damn well can too --Z.Spy 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.What precisely is this article meant to say, that is not a dicdef? (Ditto for "yes"). Batmanand | Talk 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef -M^ask 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons Yes should be kept. There is much more to say about this word. That it has not been said here is no reason for deletion, just reason for patience. Denni ☯ 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dang. Deleting the word "No"? Wikipedia can be cold sometimes. Feh. Delete as per above. The article is...pitiful. Ace Class Shadow 03:21, 28 March 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.