Talk:Tom: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Francs2000 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
**Ack! That sounds like the beginning of a bad trend I think we do *not* want to encourage. '''Delete''' --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 20:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
**Ack! That sounds like the beginning of a bad trend I think we do *not* want to encourage. '''Delete''' --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 20:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
||
*Certainly not a delete. Also a disambig for [[tom-tom]].--[[User:Samuel J. Howard|Samuel J. Howard]] 20:27, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) |
*Certainly not a delete. Also a disambig for [[tom-tom]].--[[User:Samuel J. Howard|Samuel J. Howard]] 20:27, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' and disambiguate. Agree that it's not a deletion candidate. -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham ☺]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 22:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:20, 22 September 2004
- Delete, dicdef -- Zwilson 19:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not a vote: Tom is best known as a name, surely, and as such the article may be expanded (as seems to be the trend with Eric and John) to include famous/important/articled people with that name. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ack! That sounds like the beginning of a bad trend I think we do *not* want to encourage. Delete --Improv 20:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly not a delete. Also a disambig for tom-tom.--Samuel J. Howard 20:27, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and disambiguate. Agree that it's not a deletion candidate. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)