Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of this short article is personal musing on literary ideas and traditions of sadness. Very POV. Poetic, but not very useful or appropriate. pomegranate 23:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's not an encyclopedia article. Steve.
- Delete somewhat purple-proseish essay. Denni ☯ 01:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not performance art. Jtmichcock 02:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Depression (mood) (which is what the article was after the third edit, after having been redirects to Suffering and Grief) —Bmdavll talk 06:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly the product of a madman. -Naif 12:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Depression (mood), previously it was a redirect to Suffering. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Depression (mood). Makes sense. --Aucaman 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, somewhat notable thesis statements and seems intelligentlly written, could find some use in the Blues article, or some other articles related to depression art.-MegamanZero 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Depression (mood) as above. Shawnc 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Depression (mood), I think the style of the content would negate any reason for a merge; note that user Naif above seems to be the principal creator of the article.
- keep alive Maybe it's not right for an encyclopedia, but it is, I believe, a just way of describing sadness. Is it possible to make a sort of feeling directory which holds these sorts of thoughts? I think it would be a shame to delete it all togheter. Demian Sat Dec. 10th 2005.
I agree with Demian. I found this info useful. 13-DEC-2005
- Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:31, 14 December 2005 (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.