Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Less than three
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 REDIRECT. Either by vote counting or by being ordinarily WP:BOLD. Splash 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Less than three
Delete. Can never be more than a definition. You wouldn't even search for this under its title. Chuck 21:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Emoticon – you edit conflicted me doing so with your VfDing. [[smoddy]] 21:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per smoddy. Mmmbeer 21:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No one is ever going to search for this under "Less than three". Why redirect if there is no value to the title? Chuck 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Why do people search for anything? Clearly someone took the time to add this entry. Mmmbeer 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. My point is that redirects are pointless to keep if its not something somebody would type into the "Search" box or put into an article (which are the only ways in which redirects are useful). You might type "<3" but you wouldn't type "Less than three".Chuck 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It's really impossible to tell what some people would search for. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. My point is that redirects are pointless to keep if its not something somebody would type into the "Search" box or put into an article (which are the only ways in which redirects are useful). You might type "<3" but you wouldn't type "Less than three".Chuck 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Why do people search for anything? Clearly someone took the time to add this entry. Mmmbeer 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No one is ever going to search for this under "Less than three". Why redirect if there is no value to the title? Chuck 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per smoddy. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Emoticon, don't redirect. No one will ever type "less than three" into the search box. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I presume that's a "merge and delete", which is impossible under the GFDL. Redirects are cheap. [[smoddy]] 10:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment What? Impossible under GFDL? How? Chuck 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The GFDL insists that authors are credited. If you merge content, the only place the content has the original user attached to it is on the original page. If you delete this, the author is no longer credited. Thus, it is not allowed. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 14:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment What? Impossible under GFDL? How? Chuck 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Again, it's impossible to tell what a person will search for. It is possible that someone might find use out of a redirect, even if it is one you will never use. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, I'd like to point out that a search for "Less than three" and emoticon returns on point results[1]. Mmmbeer 17:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and very few. I looked at the hits on the first three pages and only one referred to the "<3" emoticon. — JIP | Talk 12:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I presume that's a "merge and delete", which is impossible under the GFDL. Redirects are cheap. [[smoddy]] 10:38, 28 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
