Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tar babies

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 redirect. ugen64 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tar babies

I can find no indication of this term being used in the way described by the article. -- Dcfleck 02:34, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

  • Delete agreed. Also, the part about the telephone pole made no sense: A useful indicator of their presence was the numbering of a telephone pole, 1482, on Highway 1, above the beach. Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change it into a Redirect to tar baby. -- Infrogmation 04:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to "tar baby". —Seselwa 05:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Provisional Keep This article needs to be redone many times over. This kind of banded rock is fairly common on the central california coast and they are very pretty when polished. But I've never heard of them refered to as tar babies. CA Highway 1 follows the coast and I'm guessing that Telephone pole 1482 marks a good spot to find them as, California has open acess to beaches. Good place to find this kind of rock is the gravel beaches at Point Lobos state park. Klonimus 06:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm, none of this explains why this page should be kept. I think the only germane point is "I've never heard of them refered to as tar babies." -- Dcfleck 23:42, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Redirect to DROD. Or disambig, but I don't actually find this band very notable as of yet. Radiant_* 13:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Er ... this article is about pebbles, not about a band. I can see how DROD comes into it, though. Well found. Uncle G 16:27, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • keep or redirect please Yuckfoo 01:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No redirect. The local name for a pebble of unidentified geology is not encyclopedic. If the rock itself is significant (and without more data, we can't know), its article should be at its proper name. This article should not be replaced with a redirect to tar baby because in the Br'er Rabbit stories, there is only one Tar Baby, never multiples. Replacing it with a redirect to DROD seems unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 04:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to tar baby. Article as it stands is a neologism. --InShaneee 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Rossami --Wgfinley 21:01, 9 Apr 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.