Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion of Thinking
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. Enochlau 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fashion of Thinking and Fashion of thinking
I've actually spent a long time thinking about this one before I nominated it as I think it's a more complex issue than meets the eye. Google comes up with only ~400 hits for "fashion of thinking" and "fashion of thought", a decent number of which stem from wikipedia and pages that pull from wp. There is only one page in wp which links to this page (despite the fact that this page has been here for months), and that page (thought), doesn't really need the link. The author seems to claim that it's a phrase, but I honestly don't see it. It's simply a less common use of the word fashion. Is "make a left hand turn" worthy of a wp entry? It has 100 times the results of this phrase, and it has about the same claim to notability or uniqueness. --Bachrach44 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Bachrach44 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good nomination, really good. But you don't have to then put yourself one line down as delete. The closing admin will understand that is what you mean in all but the most extreme cases, and since it's not a vote nothing is gained by it. Still, good nomination.
brenneman(t)(c) 07:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good nomination, really good. But you don't have to then put yourself one line down as delete. The closing admin will understand that is what you mean in all but the most extreme cases, and since it's not a vote nothing is gained by it. Still, good nomination.
- Delete colloquialism and dicdif; maybe transwiki Peyna 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Izehar 23:53, 30 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
