Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad

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 was delete and replace with disambiguation page. Conscious 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad

Bad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It is an adjective that seems appropriate only for a dictionary. Also, the subject is so broad, just doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. Je pense donc je suis 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not really sure what to do with this. I know there are guidelines (and maybe policy) against redirecting to dab pages, but it really seems like the best idea here. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep the Nietzsche material suggests a philosophical discussion beyond a dicdef. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't that discussion be merged into Nietzsche?Charlie 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Except "bad" is a significant enough concept that that would be like merging Christianity into a section on Jesus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would agree, but Christianity is not really a "concept." However, if bad is significant enough of a concept and encyclopedic, then good should have its own article as well. If someone writes one, then the basis for my compaint is gone, and I retract it. Charlie 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Uncle G 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is Nietzsche the only one defining "bad" philosophically? The article only mentions him. If this were an article discussing the concept of bad in philosophy then maybe it would work, but the short thing about Nietzsche doesn't fit with the rest of the article and isn't enough to save it. Je pense donc je suis 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per caesar. Just H 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Good doesn't have a unique article, why should bad?Charlie 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Charlie. Bad is a part of speech and belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.TruthGal 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete any relevence with Nietzsche should simply be moved over on his page. -WarthogDemon 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the philosophical content is too insignificant to warrant keeping the page. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak delete as a dicdef and move Bad (disambiguation) to Bad. -- Kicking222 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CanadianCaesar. --- RockMFR 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a dicdef. The Nietzsche sentence can be merged into Evil or Nietsche or nowhere. Note that if some form of the Nietsche thing is kept as its own article, it should be renamed to "badness" anyway per our article naming guidelines and the disambiguation page would go here anyway. Recury 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So what is your opinion, merge or delete? They're incompatible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you can just copy the sentence into another article and then delete this one. I'm just offering that as an option. I'd rather just see it deleted. Recury 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, actually, we can't. Edit history must be preserved when merging any content. --- RockMFR 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite Make into a disambig page. Anomo 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We already have a disambig that is linked from the article.--Kchase T 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep separately. I don't know of specific sources, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that Nietzsche was the only person who wrote about this. Second choice is to merge into his article, but I find that unfavorable because of the reasonable section on street usage. Frankly, merge seems to be the emerging consensus, even if some of the folks above are expressing that with bolded deletes, which we can't do for reasons already mentioned.--Kchase T 23:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article implies that he was the only one who made that specific distinction between the German words for "bad" and "evil." Recury 02:04, 26 December 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.