Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 31 March 2007

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)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yes (word). Tizio 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. Gekedo 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The word itself is interesting, and I can see this article being usefully expanded. Rhinoracer 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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.WunNation 12:27, 31 March 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)
• Keep "you". 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. -- parasti  19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)