Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conventional

Please amend the boilerplate to provide a link to the content of the deleted article, or the "relevant live article" for this purpose, if this exists. If not, do not state that further comments can be made to the article's talk page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Maybe try again later, but it's hardly even a dab page. Golbez 18:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Conventional

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary Kurt Weber 16:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree. (I did the subst:vfd2 stuff for Weber's improperly done entry) -- SGBailey 09:46, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

RETAIN — At worst the article functions as a useful disambiguation page. Beyond this, the article can usefully expand upon various inter-related concepts which in turn may not be appropriate for a dictionary entry. By way of a relative comparison of utility, the Wiktionary entry for conventional is currently no better than a thesaurus. To the extent that the article can plainly be developed beyond a mere dictionary-type entry, it would not be reasonable to delete — 9 May 2005.

Vote unsigned by 203.198.237.30 who has quite a lot of contributions Kappa 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the vote attributed to 203.198.237.30 is apparently of less value than a vote attributed to a registered user, according to the views recently conveyed to that user by Kappa, and may presumably be given less weight, or disregarded altogether.

...I strongly advise getting a user name if you want your votes to be fully counted. Ideally everything would be decided on the strengths of the arguments, but it doesn't work that way.

Well yes, that is common knowledge around here, see the top of WP:VFD. In your case your vote probably will be counted because your contributions are verifiable. Kappa 09:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vfd decision making paradigm becomes a sham if votes are primarily assessed by reference to logged in status rather than the merits of the substantive reasons given in support of votes.

keep as this is more interesting than a mere dicdef. Compare classical. Brighterorange 13:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep per RETAIN above. Kappa 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge into the Wiktionary entry). Doesn't seem expandable. Usage notes, however interesting, are probably better suited for Wiktionary. ESkog 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment that the article "doesn't seem expandable", by way of comparative illustration, let's take the article on the Allen Fieldhouse (an article in relation to which Eskog claims major contributions). This article was in the form of an unchanged minor stub for almost 12 months, between inception in June 2004 and early May 2005. Not being an aficionado of historical American college basketball venues in Kansas, I too may have considered that this rather conventional article did not "seem expandable", given that it concerned some obscure sporting venue in the US Midwest, which no one had seen fit to edit for many months. However, it would not have made the article appropriate for VFd, for all the fundamental reasons Wikipedia exists in the first place.

On the other hand, it now appears that Vfds can be assigned a relative weight according to at least 2 variables, namely (a) whether a user is signed in (see above), and (b) whether a user considers that the relevant article "seems expandable" — 10 May 2005.

In my view, the difference between Allen Fieldhouse and Conventional is pretty clear. AFH does not belong in a dictionary any more than Conventional belongs in an encyclopedia. I am assuming you are the author, and if this is the case, your contribution isn't in vain just because a consensus arises to delete your page from here. It would seem that everything you have added to this page would be a marvelous contribution for Wiktionary. ESkog 22:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Eskog, Delete. R adiant _* 08:51, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef plus brief usage notes is still dicdef. Quale 05:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.