Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (0th nomination): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→[[Girlfriend]] and [[Boyfriend]]: keep vote |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Girlfriend]] and [[Boyfriend]]=== |
===[[Girlfriend]] and [[Boyfriend]]=== |
||
These 2 articles refer to 2 equivilant versions of a non-marital romantic spouse (1 male, 1 female); this calls for a request of business: it would be superfluous to have 2 articles about different-gender versions of the same thing --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 14:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Redirect''' and '''merge''' to [[non-marital romantic spouse]]; same with [[boyfriend]]. --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Redirect''' and '''merge''' to [[non-marital romantic spouse]]; same with [[boyfriend]]. --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:34, 28 March 2005
Girlfriend and Boyfriend
These 2 articles refer to 2 equivilant versions of a non-marital romantic spouse (1 male, 1 female); this calls for a request of business: it would be superfluous to have 2 articles about different-gender versions of the same thing --TheSamurai 14:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge to non-marital romantic spouse; same with boyfriend. --TheSamurai 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How did this happen?? I studied this Vfd and I got that an article got put back on Vfd after a while of being kept. No vote right now, this is just a question. Georgia guy 00:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This has already been voted on. So has boyfriend. Both discussions have been blanked; I'm not sure of the method to fix this. I have also completed the incompletely done VFD nomination. --SPUI (talk) 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (reply to message above}: there is no sense salvaging a VfD list from a previous VfD iteration for the same article because it would be superfluous. And besides, people will think that VfD votes from 2 iterations would be part of 1. --TheSamurai 02:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I will repeat the reasons that were said in the previous VFD: They are well written encyclopedia articles on topics that are well beyond the scope of a dictionary. Zzyzx11 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)