Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversation fillers

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. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation fillers

Rambling personal essay, part original research, part 'How to' guide. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Personal essay, not encyclopedic. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SNOW. While the article is OR, the concept certainly does exist. I'm not an expert on sociolinguistics, but I suspect it may be relevant therein. At best, I could see this going as a merge/redirect, if the topic isnt a neologism. Mystache (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per AlexTiefling. Mystache (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the following WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:SNOW Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phatic, which already contains a fair assessment of scholarly thought on this subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't see what can be merged from this article, as none of the info in the article is sourced. (Whoops, for some reason I mis-read "Re-direct" as "Merge". I am for a re-direct) This article is, as Dawn Bard put it, a "Personal essay, not encyclopedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by JEdgarFreeman (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phatic or delete as encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Redirect per AlexTiefling as Phatic clearly means the same thing but is, it would seem, the more accepted term. I agree with JEdgarFreeman that there's nothing to merge, but that doesn't preclude a redirect. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definetly delete; not encyclopedic. Maybe redirect it. abf /talk to me/ 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically... delete The author wants to give advice on how to be "a good conversationalist". Yikes. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator's intent isn't a problem if the topic is notable. Now, I think the topic is notable - the expression 'conversation filler' is reasonably widely used - but, as noted above, there's a more precise, technical term for it which already has a reasonably decent article. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (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.