Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef which isn't even close to being a proper article, if one could even be written. PC78 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with, or re-direct to, self-esteem. Bearian 20:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. DicDef. Herostratus 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was created in 2003 and nobody noticed? How interesting. But to get to the point, it's a dictionary definition and should belong at the proper entry on Wiktionary. (→zelzany - fish) 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, why cant this become a useful article? It is linked from a number of articles, so I think calls to delete this dictdef would need to consider how to fix all of those. I dont think self-esteem is an appropriate merge/redirect target as that meaning isnt what is meant on dignity. John Vandenberg 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are actually only seven articles that link to this one. That's not a lot, and those links can easily be removed if necessary. PC78 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont have a problem with a delete outcome, but my original question still remains: why cant esteem be an encyclopedic topic? if it is an encyclopedic topic, yet the current article is just a dictdef, then the current article should be expanded rather than deleted. John Vandenberg 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it could be expanded into a useful article, but after four years it's not like it hasn't had its chance. At present it's a redundant dicdef, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. PC78 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it could become an encyclopedic article. A vast opus on differences in esteem among cultures of the ages. But without any interest, I agree it may as well be deleted for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont have a problem with a delete outcome, but my original question still remains: why cant esteem be an encyclopedic topic? if it is an encyclopedic topic, yet the current article is just a dictdef, then the current article should be expanded rather than deleted. John Vandenberg 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are actually only seven articles that link to this one. That's not a lot, and those links can easily be removed if necessary. PC78 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A redirect to self-esteem seems pointless since it is an off-shoot of esteem, but we're still looking for esteem. Wikipedia is not dictionary. The Filmaker 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.