Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugliness (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Physical attractiveness. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness[edit]

Per the previous deletion discussion, ugliness as a concept is one that is covered sufficiently as the antonym of Physical attractiveness. There is nothing here but a broad definition, and it's not clear there's anything encyclopedic to say about the concept that isn't already covered elsewhere. Powers ^T 16:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Physical attractiveness. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's previously been deleted, and it's little more than a WP:DICDEF, not an encyclopedic article. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't require deletion to revert the article back to this. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article could be written on ugliness. I recently saw a book on it (I think called "Ugliness") in a bookstore. However, this article is really just a dictionary item. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss reverting back to the redirect is the discussion that dealt with turning the redirect into an article in the first place: Talk:Beauty/Archives/2023/November#Ugliness. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has never been more than an essay that quotes Webster's Dictionary. That's what "Wiktionary" is for. Some competent articles have been written about Beauty and, as Metro points out, [physical attractiveness]] (of which "ugliness" would be a degree). If someone wants to write an article that explores psychology and literary references to what physical characteristics repulse others, that would be a worthwhile endeavor. But this is crap. Mandsford (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Physical Attractiveness. Although not much, this article does have some integrity, so it would be a bit of a waste to just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Physical Attractiveness or Beauty. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'and Redirect to Physical Attractiveness or Beauty. Warrington (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way the system works, those are would be different things. Keep means that if people type in Ugliness, they get the article called Ugliness. Redirect means that if they type in Ugliness, they will be redirected to a different article. "Merge" means that the content of Ugliness would be added into another article, and when people type in Ugliness, they would find the information in a new place. Delete, of course, means that typing in the word Ugliness would return the phrase "Wikipedia does not have an article by that name." Mandsford (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in that case.Warrington (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (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.