Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timekeeper
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 of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Timekeeper" is self-explanatory. A person/thing who keeps time. That's the gist of this page. Do we really need an article on it? Other options are merging it with a sports (or whatever) page or moving it to Wiktionary. -- Simpatico 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Please note that Simpatico has been a member of Wikipedia for about one week and he has already posted approximatly five {{{AFD}}} tags ! SirIsaacBrock 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've been here a long time, but I only recently registered. Am I doing something wrong? Also, I'm a she. -- Simpatico 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- well, yes, a timekeeper is someone who keeps time, but different rules govern timekeepers in different occupations. This has faint potential to give some details of how a timekeeper in, say, basketball, differs from one in soccer; the history of the changeover from manual to automatic timekeeping in different industries and sports. Note also that there is a specific type of watch called a "timekeeper watch", which could easily become the subject of this article (see [1]). As such, I'd give this a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't take the "he" thing personally; SirIsaac probably just went with "he" because in traditional usage, that's the default English pronoun for a person of unknown or indeterminate gender. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't, I was just clarifying. :) -- Simpatico 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dic def as it stands. If anyone wants to write the article that Grutness mentions, they can recreate.Obina 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary, in the unlikely event that it doesn't already exist. Otherwise delete as a dicdef Werdna648T/C\@ 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dicdef that already has an entry in wiktionary (wiktionary:timekeeper) Kcordina 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand a timekeeper is an instrument or person...just like many other articles in Wikipedia e.g. Referee or Umpire. There should be an {{{Expand}}} tag placed not a {{{Delete}}} tag. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep -- as per SirIsaac -- Geo Swan 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Potential to expand. That's all we require. Soo 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep . Mark as a stub. Has plenty of potential for expansion. -- JLaTondre 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 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.