Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Position paper
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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Position paper[edit]
This is nothing but a dicdef, and I can't see how it would ever be more. Deville (Talk) 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary then. Equendil Talk 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare: Footnote. -- Zondor 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That there's room in the article doesn't imply that expansion is actually possible. Uncle G 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you an A for creativity on that one. d:-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your energy would be better spent demonstrating that expansion beyond a stub is actually possible. Uncle G 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it incredibly hard to believe that, in the decades upon decades of position papers being issued, the only thing that can be said about them is doable in 10 words. I'll expand it myself when I can get around to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your energy would be better spent demonstrating that expansion beyond a stub is actually possible. Uncle G 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you an A for creativity on that one. d:-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That there's room in the article doesn't imply that expansion is actually possible. Uncle G 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as primarily a dicdef, enhanced only by extlinks to form a how-to manual. None of that is wikipedia-worthy. It's been a week since a pleading of "it can be enhanced" as a way to rescue it, yet it hasn't been enhanced. If someday someone wants to write something that's actually wp-worthy, then it can be recreated at that time as a viable page. DMacks 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per {{sofixit}} ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DMacks, TewfikTalk 17:02, 10 October 2006 (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.