Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea bed

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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:16Z

[edit] Tea bed

Tea bed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

we are not a dictionary. (Sorry about the many afd nominations, I'm going through Category:stubs, tagging what is good, deleting, or nominating here). —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As it stands now, yes have to the article deleted, if the article can, however, be furnished with an historical background, references in pop culture, then I would vote to have the article Kept. --Ozgod 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pending references and expansion As above, the article is unreferenced and not much more than a definition of the term. If references and more encyclopedic information about the term are included, I'll probably change to "keep". Dugwiki 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the above rationales are in line with our long-standing Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This isn't a dictionary article at all. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about a type of furniture. We don't delete stubs that haven't been expanded. We only delete stubs if they cannot be expanded. None of the above editors has shown that the article cannot be expanded, only that it hasn't been expanded yet. Uncle G 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There hasn't been any evidence, though, that this will be expanded. And we do indeed delete articles all the time that, in their current state, appear to be little more than a dictionary definition and/or are not properly referenced. So I would beg to differ on your analysis of deletion policy. Dugwiki 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree being a stub isn't a reason to delete an article. However, regardless of what search terms I use ([1] and [2] as examples) I can find no reliable sources to show that this name/term is anything more than a neologism used in a few blogs. Nuttah68 13:59, 1 March 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.