Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Yes: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:50, 31 March 2007 editIhcoyc (talk | contribs)30,401 edits →[], [], and []: strong keep for all← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:38, 17 April 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors373,946 editsm Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. 
(37 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep all'''. The nominator is strongly advised not to renominate articles that went through recent AFDs that resulted in "keep" decisions for at least a couple of months. 3-4 weeks (in the case of ]) is not long enough. --''']]''' 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
===], ], and ]=== ===], ], and ]===
This article is very much like a dictionary entry, and should be changed to a disambiguation page with a brief definition on the top, such as the ] article. Also the ] and ] articles should be deleted in the same way. ]]] ] 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC) This article is very much like a dictionary entry, and should be changed to a disambiguation page with a brief definition on the top, such as the ] article. Also the ] and ] articles should be deleted in the same way. ]]] ] 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


:'''Delete''' Only 17 articles link to the page. ]]] ] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC) :<s>'''Delete''' Only 17 articles link to the page.</s> ]]] ] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::You can't vote if you nominated it. --] ] 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and it's quite common and well accepted for a nominator to state a position after the nomination. Not as common as letting the nomination speak for itself, but common enough that any admin will recognize it, which is the only reason it could ''possibly'' matter. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm well aware of that, my point is if she has something to say it should be incorporated into the nomination rather than placing a new vote. --] ] 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) :*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''Keep''' These people have convinced me that they should stay. And Deskana's right. They are much more than dictionary definitions. ] ] 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ]. ] 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ]. ] 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Would support the suggestion in the nom of a disambiguation page with brief definition at the top. ] 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. Would support the suggestion in the nom of a disambiguation page with brief definition at the top. ] 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The word itself is interesting, and I can see this article being usefully expanded. ] 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' The word itself is interesting, and I can see this article being usefully expanded. ] 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep''' 'Yes' is not simply a word, it has significant cultural, historical and international significance justifying a Misplaced Pages entry, as long as someone writes a satisfactory article.] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</s> *<s>'''Keep''' 'Yes' is not simply a word, it has significant cultural, historical and international significance justifying a Misplaced Pages entry, as long as someone writes a satisfactory article.] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</s>
::'''Comment''' since posting the above, ] has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> - ] ]</font> 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) ::'''Comment''' since posting the above, ] has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> - ] ]</font> 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Then he shouldn't be part of an AfD. ]]] ] 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) :::Then he shouldn't be part of an AfD. ]]] ] 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', echoing WunNation's assessment. The ] section requires a rewrite though. -- ] 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''', echoing WunNation's assessment. The ] section requires a rewrite though. -- ] 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', I support any article of words that has a historical significance.--] 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''', I support any article of words that has a historical significance.--] 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Notice''' that if the word Yes is interesting, all words are interesting, which means that all words would have an article on Misplaced Pages. That would be fine, except for the fact that '''''Misplaced Pages is <u>not</u> a dictionary.''''' ]]] ] 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Notice''' that if the word Yes is interesting, all words are interesting, which means that all words would have an article on Misplaced Pages. That would be fine, except for the fact that '''''Misplaced Pages is <u>not</u> a dictionary.''''' ]]] ] 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*Also '''notice''' that 'Yes' '''''is''''' simply a word, and all words have a significant cultural, historical, and international significance. And so far, in the long time ] has been an article, no one has improved the article, and nobody cares to improve it, or else (like me) they don't know how to improve it. ]]] ] 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *Also '''notice''' that 'Yes' '''''is''''' simply a word, and all words have a significant cultural, historical, and international significance. And so far, in the long time ] has been an article, no one has improved the article, and nobody cares to improve it, or else (like me) they don't know how to improve it. ]]] ] 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''', although normally I don't think dicdefs have any place here, I consider these three to be basic concepts of thought rather than just ordinary words. Besides, deleting them would leave a very odd looking "primary use of this term was here" hole on their disambig pages.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> - ] ]</font> 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep all''', although normally I don't think dicdefs have any place here, I consider these three to be basic concepts of thought rather than just ordinary words. Besides, deleting them would leave a very odd looking "primary use of this term was here" hole on their disambig pages.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> - ] ]</font> 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:No, the disambiguation pages would just have a short definition of the word (not in dictionary format), and then the links under that. ]] ] 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) :No, the disambiguation pages would just have a short definition of the word (not in dictionary format), and then the links under that. ]] ] 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''', strongly. Note that ] '''''earlier this month''''', with similar results, and it would be hard to claim that anything significant has changed. ''Yes'' and ''we'' both contain information beyond a mere "dictionary definition," and ''yes'' also has aspects of mathematics and logic that could be covered even more extensively than they are now. - ] 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep all''', strongly. Note that ] '''''earlier this month''''', with similar results, and it would be hard to claim that anything significant has changed. ''Yes'' and ''we'' both contain information beyond a mere "dictionary definition," and ''yes'' also has aspects of mathematics and logic that could be covered even more extensively than they are now. - ] 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''comment''' - um, why are people even ''allowed'' to nominate the same article for AfD twice in one month? ] 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' "]". As someone whose first language isn't English I find the subject of the article quite interesting, in particular the lack of singular/plural distinction and the related history. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' all three. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, but a few words can involve richer description than would be appropriate for a dictionary, and which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. These qualify (''yes'' maybe just barely as the article stands). I personally found ''you'' useful. -] 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''keep all''' per ] and ] - these articles address the topics in much greater detail than ] dictionary. Also, the nomination of ] seems almost an abuse of process as it already had an AfD in March 2007, as noted above. ], ] ] ] ] ] in-depth ] ] ] origins, grammatical peculiarities ] idiomatic uses ] ] commonly-used ] ], ] would still ] outnumbered by ] articles. ] 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per R.S. Shaw. ] 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''delete yes, keep you and we''' this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. You and we have encyclopediac content, but yes does not.--] 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This article goes beyond a dictdef; personally came here looking for "aye," lots of room for expansion here. Why is this Parliamentary usage in particular (votes/lobbies?) Also some languages don't typically use "yes/no" in the way English does, maybe should be covered here. -- ] 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Every single word is used differently in other languages! Either improve the articles or delete them, and since nobody cares to improve it, it should be deleted. ] ] 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::That's a wonky rationale. "Nobody'll do it, so delete". Shall we delete everything in ]? --] ] 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::'''comment''' - yes, I find it very unfortunate when good articles are deleted in AfD because "nobody's improving the article". If you find the article needs improvement, why not tack on a cleanup tag instead of sending it to AfD? ] 13:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::That's an overexaggeration. But the ones that have not been worked on for quite some time (a few years) should be deleted. ] ] <small>''] ]''</small> 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' I have several additions planned for ''yes'', am compiling some sources for them, but it may take a week or two; not sure when they will arrive, or when I will be able to write them.
::::At any rate, I am pleased that our article on ] remains a featured article, even if it is "about a word". My opinion remains that all of the basic grammatical particles of the English language are rich in historic resonance and unusual features, and complications that want explanation in their usage, that go well beyond what a dictionary could supply: more than enough to sustain articles about each of them. - ] 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. Confining "you" to a dictionary definition is limited and does not do justice to its cultural significance. ] proves to be an inspiration. +] 05:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. These articles are much more than dictionary definitions. --] ] 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Yes. We keep you. 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' synonymous with other entries, its already been discussed, and if we were to delete all articles with less than 20 links, Misplaced Pages would SUCK. - ] 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per above — ] 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''You''' is probably most popular word in the world ] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, it's ]. ] ] 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - clearly notable words with enough history to have encyclopedic info. The grammatical info on You and We make them especially poor choices for deletion. ] 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''' per everyone else who said to keep. Wasn't "Yes" nominated for deletion almost a month ago? ] 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 16:38, 17 April 2024

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 keep all. The nominator is strongly advised not to renominate articles that went through recent AFDs that resulted in "keep" decisions for at least a couple of months. 3-4 weeks (in the case of You) is not long enough. --Coredesat 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, You, and We

This article is very much like a dictionary entry, and should be changed to a disambiguation page with a brief definition on the top, such as the No article. Also the You and We articles should be deleted in the same way. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Only 17 articles link to the page. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't vote if you nominated it. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and it's quite common and well accepted for a nominator to state a position after the nomination. Not as common as letting the nomination speak for itself, but common enough that any admin will recognize it, which is the only reason it could possibly matter. Xtifr tälk 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, my point is if she has something to say it should be incorporated into the nomination rather than placing a new vote. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep These people have convinced me that they should stay. And Deskana's right. They are much more than dictionary definitions. A•N•N•A hi! 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Then he shouldn't be part of an AfD. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, echoing WunNation's assessment. The Notes on usage section requires a rewrite though. -- Seed 2.0 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I support any article of words that has a historical significance.--JForget 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice that if the word Yes is interesting, all words are interesting, which means that all words would have an article on Misplaced Pages. That would be fine, except for the fact that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also notice that 'Yes' is simply a word, and all words have a significant cultural, historical, and international significance. And so far, in the long time Yes has been an article, no one has improved the article, and nobody cares to improve it, or else (like me) they don't know how to improve it. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, although normally I don't think dicdefs have any place here, I consider these three to be basic concepts of thought rather than just ordinary words. Besides, deleting them would leave a very odd looking "primary use of this term was here" hole on their disambig pages. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the disambiguation pages would just have a short definition of the word (not in dictionary format), and then the links under that. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, strongly. Note that You was kept earlier this month, with similar results, and it would be hard to claim that anything significant has changed. Yes and we both contain information beyond a mere "dictionary definition," and yes also has aspects of mathematics and logic that could be covered even more extensively than they are now. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
comment - um, why are people even allowed to nominate the same article for AfD twice in one month? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Every single word is used differently in other languages! Either improve the articles or delete them, and since nobody cares to improve it, it should be deleted. A•N•N•A hi! 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a wonky rationale. "Nobody'll do it, so delete". Shall we delete everything in Category:Misplaced Pages backlog? --Deskana (ya rly) 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
comment - yes, I find it very unfortunate when good articles are deleted in AfD because "nobody's improving the article". If you find the article needs improvement, why not tack on a cleanup tag instead of sending it to AfD? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an overexaggeration. But the ones that have not been worked on for quite some time (a few years) should be deleted. A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have several additions planned for yes, am compiling some sources for them, but it may take a week or two; not sure when they will arrive, or when I will be able to write them.
At any rate, I am pleased that our article on thou remains a featured article, even if it is "about a word". My opinion remains that all of the basic grammatical particles of the English language are rich in historic resonance and unusual features, and complications that want explanation in their usage, that go well beyond what a dictionary could supply: more than enough to sustain articles about each of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's The. A•N•N•A hi! 15:08, 4 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.