Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Manger
This page is pending donkeys but it should not be deleted, because it contained useful, encyclopedic content (albeit short) that is not in wiktionary: "It is often associated with nativity scenes where the baby Jesus used a manger in place of a crib (Luke 2:7). In addition, this is a very important element of the Christian nativity and has potential for expansion to cover construction, and history of use. Kappa 13:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It shouldn't have been flagged as pending deletion - as far as I can see, the pending deletion tag was only added because somebody added a speedy delete tag with a reason of "already in Wiktionary" (not a valid reason), after another user had added a "move to Wiktionary" tag. I've backed the article up to before all the tags, so it's a perfectly harmless substub again. Nothing to see here, move along. sjorford →•← 13:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree with this particular case, isn't deletion of the Wikipedia page a normal part of the Transwiki process? Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly, but I was under the impression that dicdefs still had to go through VFD - to establish they are dicdefs - before deletion. This case shows how careless or overenthusiastic tagging can bypass that process. In fact, I now notice that Kevin Rector (talk • contribs) has tagged a bunch of these, several (but not all) of which seem to be more than simple dicdefs. sjorford →•← 16:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- At least two different people look at articles for transwiki (one to nominate, another to process it). And some other people, such as Kappa above, check the articles as well. I don't think we should list every transwikied article on VfD, because there is a present backlog of about a thousand, and for the vast majority the VfD vote would be transwiki (thus resulting in the article being labeled for transwiki, ensuing in confusion since it's already there, and warranting a re-listing on VfD). Radiant_* 09:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly, but I was under the impression that dicdefs still had to go through VFD - to establish they are dicdefs - before deletion. This case shows how careless or overenthusiastic tagging can bypass that process. In fact, I now notice that Kevin Rector (talk • contribs) has tagged a bunch of these, several (but not all) of which seem to be more than simple dicdefs. sjorford →•← 16:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please see what is written on the Administrators Noticeboard about this and similar articles. Uncle G 12:08, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- While I agree with this particular case, isn't deletion of the Wikipedia page a normal part of the Transwiki process? Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep- there is definite potential for an encyclopedic article on this topic. After all, the founder of the world's most popular religion was purportedly born in one. Capitalistroadster 09:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep valid stub Jgm 15:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. What Capitalistroadster said.--Gene_poole 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I was going to vote keep, but the people who keep removing VfD tags on things they want to keep are pissing me off, so I'm not voting. Really odd thing to do, BTW: if you succeed in removing the tag it means that the votes will all come from people who perues WP:VFD, not from people who might actually be interested in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the vfd tag was only added by somebody who wanted to keep the article, after it seemed to have been flagged for speedy outside of process, which makes it somewhat an odd case. sjorford →•← 08:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Rather than tagged for speedy deletion, it was tagged as "pending deletion", which I think means someone tried to delete it but couldn't for technical reasons. Kappa 10:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the vfd tag was only added by somebody who wanted to keep the article, after it seemed to have been flagged for speedy outside of process, which makes it somewhat an odd case. sjorford →•← 08:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree with Kappa.--Patrick 10:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; there's plenty that could (and probably will) be added -- Atlant 15:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
