Wikipedia:Deletion requests/mock-up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

Header and instructions go here

Note: This is an example page only. I used some examples and language from the current VfD page, but took some liberties with the issues and wording to make the examples clear.

Compare to bulleted format at mock-up2

Reference list of common root arguments

Contents

[edit] Pulchritudinous

Listed by: User:111 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

Policy violation: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

[edit] Alternatives

Somebody has now turned this into a redirect to Beauty, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, since anybody presented with "Beauty (redirected from Pulchritudinous)" would be none the wiser as to its meaning. If it were likely to come up in other articles, it should be left as a stub.

I have a problem with the redirect. 'Pulchitrude' may be defined as 'physical beauty and appeal,' but in the last few decades it has taken on a connotation of, shall we say, a much earthier kind of appeal. There are some, me for instance, who while not criticising the fleshier, more sensual message the word now carries, may not necessarily see it as pertaining to beauty. Best bet - send it off to Wikt & delete User:112
Should be merged with beauty then redirected
Agree: User:113, User:114

Transwiki to Wiktionary. There is no encyclopedic content in here at all, just a definition. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a thesaurus, so beauty does not need this.

Agree: User:115, User:116, User:117

Implication of this example. No one disputed that this was a dictionary entry. There was some meaningful discussion about the preferred solution - merge with beauty and redirect vs. move to Wiktionary and delete.

[edit] Michael Shankle

Listed by: User 121 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

Non-famous. Evidence: Name gets only 92 hits on google, not all of which are relevant. Orphan.

Disagree. Famous. User:124

[edit] Alternatives

Merge content into Manowar (band). (IIRC there are several such pages -- one for everybody who's ever been the band. All of them should probably be merged into Manowar (band).)

Implication of this example. While consensus has not yet been reached, those disagreeing have not provided evidence which disputes the root argument. Their opinions are likely to be steeply discounted by the sysop making the judgement call.

[edit] Abromeitiella

Listed by: User131 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

Not encyclopedic. This page is about a deleted plant genus. The page hasn't been edited since 2002.

If it existed as a taxonomic classification at one point, then it's probably encyclopedic. People who read references to it in older botany textbooks and aren't aware of the change might want to look it up here. I suggest moving the info on the taxonomical correction to deuterocohnia and then making this article a redirect.

Implication of this example. Root argument successfully disputed. Decision to redirect or keep in the interim is left to the sysop.