Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowage
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 per discussion below. As an aside, similar discussions in the future should be approached with the points raised by User:Dhartung in mind. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stowage
Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Move to Wiktionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Only a definition and doesn't have any encyclopedic material. --On the other side Contribs|@ 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Transwikied" means it has already been moved. This is a cleanup afd. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It's a bad AFD. Make no mistake. This is a bad nomination from a person who has nominated a whole load of articles on a vast range of subjects (a few of which are listed here), for utterly specious reasons, who hasn't put in any effort, and who is just serially going from one deletion process to the next, even when presented with the knowledge that there is potential for an article to be written on these subjects, if only people like him would sit down and actually write. The only actual cleanup that anyone has done here was me. That Wikipedia is going to have a subject about which entire books have been written deleted, simply because TexasAndroid wants to take the no-effort route of nominating stubs for deletion instead of expanding them, is a crying shame. How has Wikipedia got into the invidious position where people think that deleting stubs is "cleanup"? How is repeatedly nominating things for deletion, even after one has been told that an article could be written, anything other than simple wanton destruction of Wikipedia? 40% of Wikipedia was still at stub status, last I heard. How should we regard those who want to delete the foundations of the unwritten two-fifths of the encyclopaedia rather than do any work at all towards writing any of it? Do such people benefit Wikipedia in any way? 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I expressed no opinion on the goodness or badness of the AFD. I simply noted that the material had already been transwikied. TexasAndroid followed procedure by bringing these to AFD after that was complete. Your personal attack is unwarranted and uncivil. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It's a bad AFD. Make no mistake. This is a bad nomination from a person who has nominated a whole load of articles on a vast range of subjects (a few of which are listed here), for utterly specious reasons, who hasn't put in any effort, and who is just serially going from one deletion process to the next, even when presented with the knowledge that there is potential for an article to be written on these subjects, if only people like him would sit down and actually write. The only actual cleanup that anyone has done here was me. That Wikipedia is going to have a subject about which entire books have been written deleted, simply because TexasAndroid wants to take the no-effort route of nominating stubs for deletion instead of expanding them, is a crying shame. How has Wikipedia got into the invidious position where people think that deleting stubs is "cleanup"? How is repeatedly nominating things for deletion, even after one has been told that an article could be written, anything other than simple wanton destruction of Wikipedia? 40% of Wikipedia was still at stub status, last I heard. How should we regard those who want to delete the foundations of the unwritten two-fifths of the encyclopaedia rather than do any work at all towards writing any of it? Do such people benefit Wikipedia in any way? 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Transwikied" means it has already been moved. This is a cleanup afd. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect/merge. There's more that can be said than a dicdef since, as 86.20.169.102 said elsewhere, there have been books written about the topic. --Itub (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not aware of any change of policy that doesn't allow stubs to exist any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (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.
