Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch wife
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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to keep, 2 to merge, 1 to delete. A merge with Pillow might be in order. -- BD2412 talk 05:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch wife
WP:WINAD. A dicdef with no potential for growth. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
- Keep, encyclopedic. Could be expanded to discuss the history, construction, cultural associations etc. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
- I don't understand at all. You've basically voted "keep" on all of these because it could be expanded. Do we keep unencyclopedic vanity and hoaxes because they have the same name as something notable, and therefore could be fixed? No. So why would we keep dicdefs because they could be expanded? If you are going to rewrite them yourself, I'll reconsider my vote. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
- We shouldn't delete short, valid articles about topics wikipedia needs to cover, whether they are villages or everyday objects. Vanity articles and hoaxes do not fit that description. This article is already encyclopedic and is a useful start to a longer article, which should ideally be written by someone more knowledgable than myself. Kappa 3 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
- The article in its current form is by no means encyclopedic. Numbered, two sentence fragments, short and choppy. Dicdef. Also, I do not believe the notion of adding "history" and "construction" information is valid either. Just because you can find information, doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
- Great, so I'll never be able to look up the history or constructions of dutch wives anywhere. Thanks for keeping me and everyone else in ignorance. Kappa 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
- The article in its current form is by no means encyclopedic. Numbered, two sentence fragments, short and choppy. Dicdef. Also, I do not believe the notion of adding "history" and "construction" information is valid either. Just because you can find information, doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
- We shouldn't delete short, valid articles about topics wikipedia needs to cover, whether they are villages or everyday objects. Vanity articles and hoaxes do not fit that description. This article is already encyclopedic and is a useful start to a longer article, which should ideally be written by someone more knowledgable than myself. Kappa 3 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
- I don't understand at all. You've basically voted "keep" on all of these because it could be expanded. Do we keep unencyclopedic vanity and hoaxes because they have the same name as something notable, and therefore could be fixed? No. So why would we keep dicdefs because they could be expanded? If you are going to rewrite them yourself, I'll reconsider my vote. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
- Merge to Pillow, it's a kind of pillow, yes? This is precisely what our official Mergist Logo represents. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:40 (UTC)
- Merge, as per the above vote. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Grue 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
I'm a newbie, and the original author of the article. If I'd known that Wiktionary existed, I would have entered it there instead. Since it has already been moved there, it should be deleted.
- Keep, I think it's a valid topic. Everyking 8 July 2005 23:43 (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.
