Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polite fiction
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Polite fiction[edit]
Sorry, but it simply made no sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Please note: This was the state of the article at time of nomination. It has been expanded since then.
- Weak dicdef, otherwise delete. RidG (talk) 18:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- cleanup seems to be a real concept. Lame example though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup and then re-evaluate. Like Andrew said, real concept but lame example. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As the nominator says: it has no sense to me. --Neigel von Teighen 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as
rewritten by Antaeus Feldspar. —Korath (Talk) 22:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) - Delete, original research, personal rant about a trivial word construction. Unhelpful. Wyss 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Trivial word construction? I guess you're right; it's such a trivial, obvious construction that everyone would obviously know what it means from the words themselves and no explanation at all would be necessary. Oh wait. Next time you do cleanup and be sure to let me know so that I can tear it down as "original research" and "personal rant". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I do think it's a trivial word construction, dicdef, and I'm not sure why "cleanup" is mentioned since the article still contains a first-person rant. Wyss 06:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Trivial word construction? I guess you're right; it's such a trivial, obvious construction that everyone would obviously know what it means from the words themselves and no explanation at all would be necessary. Oh wait. Next time you do cleanup and be sure to let me know so that I can tear it down as "original research" and "personal rant". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 02:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You forgot to call it something-"cruft". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I've certainly heard this phrase before, and Google turns up many examples. Not original research as rewritten. At least give it a chance to become encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep current version. It's still a mere dicdef but it might be able to grow. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -Sean Curtin
- Keep as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- The original made sense to me. But I can see how it could be not understood. The rewrite is much better. Keep. Uncle G 22:24, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Keep. I've not heard the term before, but the concept is clearly real, and not too badly explained. - RedWordSmith 00:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.