Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burgage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator following rewrite. Neutralitytalk 05:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Dictdef. Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. RickK 05:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't understand the policy of VfD based on "dictdef" when it's allready been marked a stub. A stub is, by nature, very limited and would appear as a dictdef. Is there a reason why Burgage could not be an encyclopedia article in the future, with a stub for now? Is that not what stubs are for? Stbalbach 06:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two answers for you. One is that a stub, generally, is longer than a dictionay definition (see Wikipedia:The perfect stub article). The other is that "dictdef" on a vfd page often implies that the nominator feels the article has little potential for expansion. This varies based on the nominator--some feel that dictdef-length articles should be removed wholesale, others that we should slap them with {{expansion}}. No vote. HTH, Meelar (talk) 06:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's now a full stub. There is a Burgage entry in Encyclopedia Britannica.Stbalbach 06:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice expansion. Kappa 07:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's now a full stub. There is a Burgage entry in Encyclopedia Britannica.Stbalbach 06:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two answers for you. One is that a stub, generally, is longer than a dictionay definition (see Wikipedia:The perfect stub article). The other is that "dictdef" on a vfd page often implies that the nominator feels the article has little potential for expansion. This varies based on the nominator--some feel that dictdef-length articles should be removed wholesale, others that we should slap them with {{expansion}}. No vote. HTH, Meelar (talk) 06:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, encyclopedic topic and an important historical concept in tenure. Should be expanded to cover history of use. Kappa 06:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, keep the rewrite. RickK 07:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- concur with RickK. Neutralitytalk 05:05, May 18, 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.