Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach Chic
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 was delete (should redirect anyway due to Beach chic W.marsh 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beach Chic
Contested prod. Clearly unencyclopedic combination of a dicdef neologism and an announcement of attire for an upcoming wedding! Humourous, but ain't for Wikipedia. I didn't think any of the speedy categories fit, although perhaps patent nonsense? Flyguy649talkcontribs 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I tried to twist CSD several ways, too, but regardless this fails WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic in the least.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-encyclopdic. GlassFET 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Who contested it, idiots who want their wedding announced with this piece of crap? I'm guessing it's a smash each others' faces into cake affair, if anyone even makes it to the alter. How incredibly low life. KP Botany 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)\
- Comment Wikipedia has a paragraph, referenced, imaged, on beach chic in its article on chic (style). I have copied this text and replaced the crap with that. The crap cannot stay just because this guy can't afford to place a wedding advertisement in the local paper or is too cheap to spring for invitations. It can and still should be deleted because this information is already covered in another article. KP Botany 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, but then we could also redirect there, no? --Tikiwont 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply No, we should redirect Beach chic (red linked because it is not even title correctly) to Chic:_A-L#Beach_chic, where it was already before this nonsense came up--it's not enough of an article to have its own as is, even if the el cheapo groom does get married in beach chic and it makes the times. KP Botany 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i certainly agree that there is nothing that warrants a separate article, and the target that I mentioned above is the same, nor would the capital 'C' exclude a redirect, which could be done for both variants.--Tikiwont 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be useful. Oh, I think when the article title is proper, "Beach chic," without the capital c, this will cover the variation with the capital letter. KP Botany 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i certainly agree that there is nothing that warrants a separate article, and the target that I mentioned above is the same, nor would the capital 'C' exclude a redirect, which could be done for both variants.--Tikiwont 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply No, we should redirect Beach chic (red linked because it is not even title correctly) to Chic:_A-L#Beach_chic, where it was already before this nonsense came up--it's not enough of an article to have its own as is, even if the el cheapo groom does get married in beach chic and it makes the times. KP Botany 20:51, 31 May 2007 (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.
