| Revision as of 23:38, 10 October 2010 editColonel Warden (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,041 edits quote← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:48, 10 October 2010 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,137 edits →Pad feet: wrongNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :Bullshit. The article was tagged as unsourced stub since 2006 until you decided to remove the tag without adding a source. Instead of trying to pencil-whip this nom with essays and deletion policy subsections, why don't you try actually improving the damn thing if you care so much. The "source" you provide proves that pad feet exist and are used on furniture. Big deal. ] (]) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | :Bullshit. The article was tagged as unsourced stub since 2006 until you decided to remove the tag without adding a source. Instead of trying to pencil-whip this nom with essays and deletion policy subsections, why don't you try actually improving the damn thing if you care so much. The "source" you provide proves that pad feet exist and are used on furniture. Big deal. ] (]) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::* It is our ] that it is uncivil to make demands of this sort of other editors, who work as unpaid volunteers: "''Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.''" So, if you want the article to be improved then please attend to the matter yourself. AFD is not cleanup. ] (]) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ::* It is our ] that it is uncivil to make demands of this sort of other editors, who work as unpaid volunteers: "''Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.''" So, if you want the article to be improved then please attend to the matter yourself. AFD is not cleanup. ] (]) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::*That's specious logic and you know it. '''I''' am suggesting the article be deleted because this is just a dictionary definition of a part of some pieces of furniture and not a particularly notable concept. '''You''' are suggesting that it is notable and could be expanded. Suggesting that is not enough, you need to ''prove it'' if the article is to kept, instead of just throwing policy links around. The onus is in fact on you to back up what you say with reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of pad feet. ] (]) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:48, 10 October 2010
Pad feet
- Pad feet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined WP:PROD. {{prod}} {{prod2}}and {{unreferenced}} tags removed without explanation or improvement. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary of furniture terminology. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is clearly notable - see Taunton's Complete Illustrated Guide to Period Furniture Details, for example. The deletion process does not seem to have been followed and the proposal to delete this promising topic is contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bullshit. The article was tagged as unsourced stub since 2006 until you decided to remove the tag without adding a source. Instead of trying to pencil-whip this nom with essays and deletion policy subsections, why don't you try actually improving the damn thing if you care so much. The "source" you provide proves that pad feet exist and are used on furniture. Big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is our policy that it is uncivil to make demands of this sort of other editors, who work as unpaid volunteers: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." So, if you want the article to be improved then please attend to the matter yourself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's specious logic and you know it. I am suggesting the article be deleted because this is just a dictionary definition of a part of some pieces of furniture and not a particularly notable concept. You are suggesting that it is notable and could be expanded. Suggesting that is not enough, you need to prove it if the article is to kept, instead of just throwing policy links around. The onus is in fact on you to back up what you say with reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of pad feet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)