Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brownie points
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Brownie points
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bcrowell 03:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep no brownie points for you. Mmmbeer 03:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment -- looks like more than a dictionary entry to me.. --Mysidia (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable pseudo-currency. Kappa 04:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep not sure why we have the {{vocab-stub}} if words aren't fair game, but this is as much a concept as it is the word signifying that concept. Nateji77 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Words aren't fair game. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopaedia. {{vocab-stub}} was created as part of the stub-sorting and sub-stub elimination project, as a temporary holding area for sub-stubs that were dictionary articles that should be eventually transwikied to the dictionary and otherwise dealt with. See the explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kybernetès by Grutness and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7Bvocab-stub.7D.7D. Articles that give etymologies and meanings of words and idioms are dictionary articles, that belong in a dictionary. An encyclopaedia article is about a person/place/concept/event/thing. So an encyclopaedia article on brownie points would be about the concept of brownie points, not about the etymology of an idiom. Uncle G 06:39:56, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
- Keep OK? SchmuckyTheCat 05:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. At this point, it is little more than a dicdef but my gut reaction is that there is still room for some expansion exploring the history and modern usage of the term, so I am slightly inclined to give it a pass. -- DS1953 06:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Well known phrase. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- A definite, nailed on keeper. jamesgibbon 10:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --GraemeL (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. To delete a stub, you have to be sure that it can never grow into something worthwhile. That clearly isn't the case here. Soo 12:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Longhair | Talk 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - C'mon now :) --fpo 18:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - No reason I can tell to delete this. ~Don.
- Keep. I could see users needing to study the history and relation of this concept outside of the literal dictionary definition. Che Fox 06:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- This never made it to a main VfD page; listing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it did. It was listed on the 2005-08-20 per-day page for a few hours until it was removed by Matt Yeager (talk • contribs). Uncle G 19:40:34, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
- Move to wiktionary. -- Reinyday, 16:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I'll conceed the posibility of making more than a dictdef out of this, and it's only been a mom-redirect for a little over a month, but if this comes back in a few months without having been made more than a dictdef, I'll gladly support a deletion then. Caerwine 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep CalJW 19:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Give it time. --Meiers Twins 14:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not amazing material, but it's worthy enough to live. --McA 19:17, 6 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
