Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Here

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WINAD. VV 05:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article goes beyond being a dictionary [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 05:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, perhaps I should say that it has nothing encyclopedic in it. Will we have articles for there, now, because? (Okay, we have the first two, but they're for other things.) VV 05:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain -- I agree that the page raises WINAD issues, but it really sounds like something from the HHGTTG. Klanda 05:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slight problems, but overall an encyclopedic look at the concept of here, which goes beyond a dicdef —siroχo 06:44, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for amusement if nothing else. -Sean Curtin 09:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has already been through the wringer about a year ago. Looks like I need to get busy on because. Smerdis of Tlön 11:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This is ridiculous. We don't have articles on just words, except those notable as words (mostly swear words). You'd better get to work on during, although, whenever, anyway, in case of, without, and notwithstanding. VV 22:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A small part of the article defines "here." The rest is just a few references to the word. If I had more votes, I'd vote delete twice more just to counter the "amusement" vote and the "HHGTTG" vote. -- WOT 19:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. — Gwalla | Talk 22:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep just because the last paragraph is wonderful. -- Jmabel 01:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's part dicdef, part philosophy, part brilliant prose and entirely the funniest thing I've read all day, but it ain't an encyclopedia article. sjorford 13:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: Right now it's a little useful and a lot silly. Can we maybe increase the usefulness while decreasing the silliness without it becoming a dicdef? Probably not, but it could be worth a try. -R. fiend 15:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I do not see how. Delete unless substantially improved within the discussion time. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami 00:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Amusing, but I don't think it belongs, ahem, here. Delete Lacrimosus 05:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete? I think not! This is the epitomy of a philological article, well-written and with humor. If this article falls to deletion, then the Pokemon editors really have won the ball game. Denni☯ 03:10, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
  • Keep The Steve 07:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Artistic, and, in my opinion, useful enough. - RedWordSmith 17:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's more than a word; it's a concept.Wolfman 20:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 20:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)