Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tête-bêche
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 keep. Punkmorten 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tête-bêche[edit]
dictionary def Darkfred Talk to me 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article would be useful on wictionary, so I will not vote delete, perhaps my nomination was too premature. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a concept in philately, i.e. a particular pairing of stamps. We delete articles on concepts if they are perpetual stubs that cannot be expanded (because no information from sources beyond the stub content actually exists), although in some cases article merger is the better solution. The obvious target for such a merger here would be the as-yet-unwritten article on postage stamp printing, which would explain for starters how cliche replacement can result in tête-bêche pairs. Uncle G 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the comments above and below feel free to WP:SNOWBALL this as keep. I withdraw my nomination. --Darkfred Talk to me 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a concept in philately, i.e. a particular pairing of stamps. We delete articles on concepts if they are perpetual stubs that cannot be expanded (because no information from sources beyond the stub content actually exists), although in some cases article merger is the better solution. The obvious target for such a merger here would be the as-yet-unwritten article on postage stamp printing, which would explain for starters how cliche replacement can result in tête-bêche pairs. Uncle G 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The information here goes beyond a dicdef I think and is more conceptual - it is a definition in a particular context. Perhaps merge into philately. SM247My Talk 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This clearly goes beyond a dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MacGyverMagic. --MaNeMeBasat 14:26, 17 September 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.