Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes

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 keep all. The nominator is strongly advised not to renominate articles that went through recent AFDs that resulted in "keep" decisions for at least a couple of months. 3-4 weeks (in the case of You) is not long enough. --Core desat 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, You, and We

This article is very much like a dictionary entry, and should be changed to a disambiguation page with a brief definition on the top, such as the No article. Also the You and We articles should be deleted in the same way. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 17 articles link to the page. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote if you nominated it. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and it's quite common and well accepted for a nominator to state a position after the nomination. Not as common as letting the nomination speak for itself, but common enough that any admin will recognize it, which is the only reason it could possibly matter. Xtifr _tälk 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, my point is if she has something to say it should be incorporated into the nomination rather than placing a new vote. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These people have convinced me that they should stay. And Deskana's right. They are much more than dictionary definitions. A•N•N•A hi! 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word). Tizio 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would support the suggestion in the nom of a disambiguation page with brief definition at the top. Gekedo 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word itself is interesting, and I can see this article being usefully expanded. Rhinoracer 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Yes' is not simply a word, it has significant cultural, historical and international significance justifying a Wikipedia entry, as long as someone writes a satisfactory article.WunNation 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then he shouldn't be part of an AfD. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, echoing WunNation's assessment. The Notes on usage section requires a rewrite though. -- Seed 2.0 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I support any article of words that has a historical significance.--JForget 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that if the word Yes is interesting, all words are interesting, which means that all words would have an article on Wikipedia. That would be fine, except for the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that 'Yes' is simply a word, and all words have a significant cultural, historical, and international significance. And so far, in the long time Yes has been an article, no one has improved the article, and nobody cares to improve it, or else (like me) they don't know how to improve it. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, although normally I don't think dicdefs have any place here, I consider these three to be basic concepts of thought rather than just ordinary words. Besides, deleting them would leave a very odd looking "primary use of this term was here" hole on their disambig pages. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the disambiguation pages would just have a short definition of the word (not in dictionary format), and then the links under that. A•N•N•Afoxlove r hello! 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, strongly. Note that You was kept earlier this month, with similar results, and it would be hard to claim that anything significant has changed. Yes and we both contain information beyond a mere "dictionary definition," and yes also has aspects of mathematics and logic that could be covered even more extensively than they are now. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - um, why are people even allowed to nominate the same article for AfD twice in one month? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "you". As someone whose first language isn't English I find the subject of the article quite interesting, in particular the lack of singular/plural distinction and the related history. -- parasti ^(talk) 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a few words can involve richer description than would be appropriate for a dictionary, and which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. These qualify (yes maybe just barely as the article stands). I personally found you useful. -R. S. Shaw 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all per R. S. Shaw and parasti - these articles address the topics in much greater detail than a dictionary. Also, the nomination of You seems almost an abuse of process as it already had an AfD in March 2007, as noted above. ANNAfoxlover, even if Wikipedia had an in-depth article on the origins, grammatical peculiarities and idiomatic uses of every commonly-used English word, they would still be outnumbered by Simpsons articles. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R.S. Shaw. JuJube 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes, keep you and we this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. You and we have encyclopediac content, but yes does not.--Sefringle 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article goes beyond a dictdef; personally came here looking for "aye," lots of room for expansion here. Why is this Parliamentary usage in particular (votes/lobbies?) Also some languages don't typically use "yes/no" in the way English does, maybe should be covered here. -- Blorg 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single word is used differently in other languages! Either improve the articles or delete them, and since nobody cares to improve it, it should be deleted. A•N•N•A hi! 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wonky rationale. "Nobody'll do it, so delete". Shall we delete everything in Category:Wikipedia backlog? --Deskana (ya rly) 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - yes, I find it very unfortunate when good articles are deleted in AfD because "nobody's improving the article". If you find the article needs improvement, why not tack on a cleanup tag instead of sending it to AfD? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an overexaggeration. But the ones that have not been worked on for quite some time (a few years) should be deleted. A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have several additions planned for yes, am compiling some sources for them, but it may take a week or two; not sure when they will arrive, or when I will be able to write them.

At any rate, I am pleased that our article on thou remains a featured article, even if it is "about a word". My opinion remains that all of the basic grammatical particles of the English language are rich in historic resonance and unusual features, and complications that want explanation in their usage, that go well beyond what a dictionary could supply: more than enough to sustain articles about each of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Confining "you" to a dictionary definition is limited and does not do justice to its cultural significance. Thou proves to be an inspiration. +A.0u 05:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are much more than dictionary definitions. --Deskana (ya rly) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. We keep you. Yamaguchi先生 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep synonymous with other entries, its already been discussed, and if we were to delete all articles with less than 20 links, Wikipedia would SUCK. - Bennyboyz3000 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above — Sarcha 45 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You is probably most popular word in the world Al-Bargit 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's The. A•N•N•A hi! 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable words with enough history to have encyclopedic info. The grammatical info on You and We make them especially poor choices for deletion. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per everyone else who said to keep. Wasn't "Yes" nominated for deletion almost a month ago? Acalamari 23:11, 4 April 2007 (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.