Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick

Dicdef if ever I saw one Treborbassett 23:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually a type 1 disambiguation between a word, a surname, and a trade name. It could do with heavy cleanup to make that clear, though. The current article is horrendously unbalanced. Uncle G 23:42, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Keep,please.User:Andycjp13th March 2005
• Needs a quick Clean up job. It should be a standard disambiguation page. Zzyzx11 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes you're quite right, so Keep - it is a disambiguation page, but it does need to be cleaned up. The dictionary definition of quick should go. Treborbassett 01:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Tygar 02:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I've given it a once-over. It should be clearer now what this page is. Uncle G 10:33, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Keep new form. Good work - David Gerard 13:34, 13 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.