Difference between revisions of "Talk:Palantir"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
(NSwiki:Deletion - procedural nomination) |
(delete/rant) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*'''Delete'''. Usually I'd vote a weak "keep and expand" for articles that probably merit inclusion, but don't have enough information to be useful. However, this article is kind of useless, as it contains no information not found in Wikipedia. --[[User:Goobergunch|Goobergunch]]|[[User talk:Goobergunch|?]] 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT) | *'''Delete'''. Usually I'd vote a weak "keep and expand" for articles that probably merit inclusion, but don't have enough information to be useful. However, this article is kind of useless, as it contains no information not found in Wikipedia. --[[User:Goobergunch|Goobergunch]]|[[User talk:Goobergunch|?]] 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT) | ||
| + | * '''Delete'''. I ''suspect'' that it may have been reserved, or created in advance of including content. This is a practice which I personally see no purpose for, as ''reserving'' so as to get one's own article under the correct name, would be utterly in vain, that is why we have disambiguation pages. If another were to have composed an article of the same name, that of a ''reserved'' article, chances are that the article with content would be put in place of the empty one. Moreover even prelaying an empty page seems to me fairly pointless. [[User:Rechze|Rechze]] • [[User talk:Rechze|(talk)]] 10:05, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 06:05, 10 March 2005
Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|? 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
First of all, a is not an undertakers ministry thing but it has been used by others as well. Second of all, it is better to make a good article in one session then to just post a picture of a palantir in an article. This is useless and confusing for people visiting the page. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:42, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Delete. Usually I'd vote a weak "keep and expand" for articles that probably merit inclusion, but don't have enough information to be useful. However, this article is kind of useless, as it contains no information not found in Wikipedia. --Goobergunch|? 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- Delete. I suspect that it may have been reserved, or created in advance of including content. This is a practice which I personally see no purpose for, as reserving so as to get one's own article under the correct name, would be utterly in vain, that is why we have disambiguation pages. If another were to have composed an article of the same name, that of a reserved article, chances are that the article with content would be put in place of the empty one. Moreover even prelaying an empty page seems to me fairly pointless. Rechze • (talk) 10:05, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
