Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete --Allen3 talk 00:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dwang
WP:WINAD. A dicdef and I see no potential for growth. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
- Keep, more than a dicdef. Could be expanded to give methods of construction, techniques used for installation, history of design etc. Kappa 2 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
- Not that I didn't expect your vote, but aren't we voting on what it is now, not what you thnk it might become? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
- Then why did you mention you see no potential for expansion? Anyway there is need for expansion here, but the current article provides a good start. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't, and I'm still not sure I do, but I may be wrong. But my question was whether one is supposed to vote based on the article's content, or based on the potential of the article's title? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
- The criteria for deletion generally point to the question of whether an article on the topic in question is inherently unencyclopedic, irrespective of content. A vanity page, for example, may never be encyclopedic even if the author manages to include 20 page of information about every detail of his life. A one-line article on a federal appellate judge (of which we have had a few), on the other hand, should clearly be kept because the topic is notable, and there is indeed potential for expansion. -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't, and I'm still not sure I do, but I may be wrong. But my question was whether one is supposed to vote based on the article's content, or based on the potential of the article's title? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
- Then why did you mention you see no potential for expansion? Anyway there is need for expansion here, but the current article provides a good start. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
- Not that I didn't expect your vote, but aren't we voting on what it is now, not what you thnk it might become? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
- Delete unless significantly expanded before VFD ends. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
- Delete Should be moved to Wiktionary, as I believe as has already been done. The notion that this expanded and made to suit Wikipedia is implausible. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:39 (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.
