Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tump
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 revert to a redirect. Again Grutness...wha? 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. It has been deleted twice by proposed deletion, and proposed for deletion a third time. (See the logs.) If it is deleted as a result of a community discussion, it can subsequently be speedily deleted. Or if the community decides to keep it, it can be turned into an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, slangdef or neologism. --fvw* 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definition--if that. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … or the community could just redirect it, as it has been redirected three times before, to the article for which this is a genuine alternative name. Repeatedly nominating this for deletion has been a huge waste of time, and getting an AFD consensus in order to enable repeatedly pushing this through speedy deletion in the future is merely creating more time wasting for the future. Editors could have simply restored the redirect — an ordinary editorial action that actually takes one third of the number of edits taken by an AFD nomination and doesn't waste administrator time with a cycle of repeated speedy deletions in the future. There are other tools in the toolbox apart from deletion nominations. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, browsing through the history. Can we not still do that? Or do we have to wait for the AfD to close, perhaps with a deletion, until the next person recreates the article? Drmies (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'mean waste everyone's time then twiddle our thumbs until next time? Yeah, we could, I suppose. But then again... Grutness...wha? 00:15, 11 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.