Talk:Dilbertian: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Dilbertian]]: Delete |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''from VfD:'' |
|||
===[[Dilbertian]]=== |
|||
Finding 671 Google hits for the term, I've added it to the [[Dilbert]] article. Even if we accept it as a notable neologism, though, it's dicdef and adequately covered by the mention in [[Dilbert]]. Delete. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
Finding 671 Google hits for the term, I've added it to the [[Dilbert]] article. Even if we accept it as a notable neologism, though, it's dicdef and adequately covered by the mention in [[Dilbert]]. Delete. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*'''Delete'''. Never heard of this as a [[DNRC]] member... - [[User:RedWordSmith|RedWordSmith]] 19:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Never heard of this as a [[DNRC]] member... - [[User:RedWordSmith|RedWordSmith]] 19:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
*Delete: If the content is now in the [[Dilbert]] article, there is no need for its continuance in another form. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 22:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
*Delete: If the content is now in the [[Dilbert]] article, there is no need for its continuance in another form. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 22:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
*Make a '''Deletian,''' it's just a standard English formation from ''Dilbert. |
*Make a '''Deletian,''' it's just a standard English formation from ''Dilbert.'' We don't need an article on ''Gilbertian'' for W. S. Gilbert or ''Albertian'' for Prince Albert or ''Robertian'' for Robert either. [[User:Dpbsmith|[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]]]] 00:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. Neologism. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 03:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*If the info is in [[Dilbert]], redirect there. [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<span style="color:#627562;">siro</span>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<span style="color:#627562;">''χ''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|<span style="color:#627562;">o</span>]] 08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*A '''redirect''' to [[Dilbert]] would be harmless. [[User:Livajo|[[User:Livajo|力伟]]|[[User talk:Livajo|т]]]] 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* I think it's common enough in speech to deserve a '''redirect'''. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]|[[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Redirect''' to [[Dilbert]] and make sure it's mentioned there.-[[User:PlasmaDragon|PlasmaDragon]] 16:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
''end mvoed discussion'' |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:10, 31 January 2023
from VfD:
Finding 671 Google hits for the term, I've added it to the Dilbert article. Even if we accept it as a notable neologism, though, it's dicdef and adequately covered by the mention in Dilbert. Delete. JamesMLane 19:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef Gazpacho 19:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Never heard of this as a DNRC member... - RedWordSmith 19:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: If the content is now in the Dilbert article, there is no need for its continuance in another form. Geogre 22:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Make a Deletian, it's just a standard English formation from Dilbert. We don't need an article on Gilbertian for W. S. Gilbert or Albertian for Prince Albert or Robertian for Robert either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. --Improv 03:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If the info is in Dilbert, redirect there. —siroχo 08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- A redirect to Dilbert would be harmless. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's common enough in speech to deserve a redirect. -- Jmabel|Talk 22:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dilbert and make sure it's mentioned there.-PlasmaDragon 16:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
end mvoed discussion