Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not!

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:58Z

[edit] Not!

Not! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has been transwikied and I really don't see any point for it stick around on Wikipedia. And guys, really fight the urge to be "witty" when voting on this one ok? SeizureDog 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article has quite a bit more content than just a dicdef, so I'd say keep. On the other hand, it may be best to move it to "Postfix not" or something like that. --N Shar 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Most of that extra content is just examples of usage in popular culture (which if it stays, it could end up getting very cluttered with). --SeizureDog 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dicdef that's already been transwikied and there is no need for an article along the lines of "use of NOT! in popular culture." Otto4711 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This construction appears to be more than just a dictionary item: it has some cultural and social content. --Goochelaar 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree that this article is more than a dicdef. It is a dicdef with some random examples of the word's usage. That extra content does not make this article more substantive. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as described above, a few usage examples does not change a dic def into an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Already transwikied. Dicdef. Inkpaduta 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have to agree with Goochelaar, this was quite a major thing in Borat for example Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep very frequently used. definitely has important cultural connotations. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is definitely used massively, especially by children.--Orthologist 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, holds potential to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition as well as important cultural connotations. Yamaguchi先生 08:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The comments above don't really seem to have wikipedia guidelines in mind; "frequently used" is sort of meaningless, wikipedia is not a dictionary. As for this dubious claim that it has important cultural connotations, if there's no attempt to communicate that in the article, then there's not much use for the article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of room for expansion beyond a definiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is much more than I would expect from a dictionary definition, and the term itself is notable. (jarbarf) 19:30, 12 February 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.