Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow
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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. kingboyk 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tomorrow
This article is a dual violation of WP:NOT. First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (the lead of this article). Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (the horrendous "References in culture" section). Furthermore, I can't see any potential for this to expand into anything which is more useful, in an encyclopedic sense, than a dictdef.
This is the second nomination; the article was nominated for deletion on 30 June 2004; the debate is preserved at Talk:Tomorrow. On that occasion, the consensus was to keep as a disambiguation page. However, the page as it stood then was in no way a disambiguation page as we now know them. Not one of the entries was in fact for the singular word "tommorow"; rather, it was what we would now term an indiscrimate list. All things considered I think we should delete this article. kingboyk 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - has been here since 2004. No reason for deletion given. A significant concept and a useful place for cultural references. This is the sort of deletion nomination which has caused longtime user Joe Mabel to significantly reduce his involvement with Wikipedia. Jefferson Anderson 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- This response was posted whilst I was preparing my rationale so of course the "no reason for deletion" statement is no longer correct (I use a script to nominate, which hijacks the browser window; I stated clearly that the nomination was to follow - it was just a placeholder). Anyway, I digress: the last time I checked, "Joe Mabel likes it" wasn't a valid criterion for keeping an article. --kingboyk 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Make into DAB. The article presents plenty of contextual information and links to other articles. Today is already a short definition, DAB page. The excessive definitions should be in Wiktionary though, not Wikipedia. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to mostly be a disambiguation page. I say pare it down to just that and keep. There are clearly a lot of things called "Tomorrow", classic situation where we should have a dab page. We just need to remove all of the fluff that's crept in. --W.marsh 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's currently in essence a dab page; I agree that turning it into one is plausible and probably desirable, provided that we actually do that and don't return to having a "list of everything under the sun which mentions tommorow" :) --kingboyk 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well maybe you're right about the version that existed when I said that, but I'm currently turning it into a dab page, check again please. --W.marsh 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's still not a dab page. Every item in a dab page should be link, and it should merely disambiguate. For example, there's no reason at all to imagine that somebody looking for... oh never mind, looks like you're still trimming :) --kingboyk 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm done with what I intend to do for now. Hopefully it illustrates there are multiple things called "tomorrow", so a dab page is justifiable. It's not perfect yet, but perfection is hardly a requirement for keeping something, it can still be improved. --W.marsh 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Righto, I shall withdraw this nomination then but renominate if your changes get reverted. --kingboyk 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm done with what I intend to do for now. Hopefully it illustrates there are multiple things called "tomorrow", so a dab page is justifiable. It's not perfect yet, but perfection is hardly a requirement for keeping something, it can still be improved. --W.marsh 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's still not a dab page. Every item in a dab page should be link, and it should merely disambiguate. For example, there's no reason at all to imagine that somebody looking for... oh never mind, looks like you're still trimming :) --kingboyk 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well maybe you're right about the version that existed when I said that, but I'm currently turning it into a dab page, check again please. --W.marsh 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's currently in essence a dab page; I agree that turning it into one is plausible and probably desirable, provided that we actually do that and don't return to having a "list of everything under the sun which mentions tommorow" :) --kingboyk 22:18, 10 April 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.
