Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes/old version

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The result was Nomination withdrawn --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/old version

Dicdef. Outcome of delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word), but kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes. Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition. Taemyr (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Nom no longer feels that the article should be deleted.[reply]

I'm not quite clear why this still exists given that first AfD, and not sure why it wasn't shot down as a recreation in that second AfD, so I'm just going to vote on its merits: Delete as dictdef with no encyclopædic content. --fvw* 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the first two AFDs pertained to wildly different versions of the same article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is the AFD named after a temporary page? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it was a temporary page when I nominated it. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sentence words. Nominator change of hearts from this set of edits. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, but keep at least one article, preferably both. Currently, the Yes and no article, a longish article, has a link to this AfD discussion; the page sentence words also exists and is short. I opposed changing Yes from an article to a disambiguation page because I wanted to add material about answers to negative questions in various languages; there are interesting things to say, not only about the words "yes" and "no" in various languages but also about replies such as "It is." or "Yes, it is." etc. and words such as "si" (French) and "doch" (German), so I would like an article (e.g. "Yes" or "Yes and no") where such information can go; if "yes and no" is only about the English words, perhaps another article is needed ("Replies to questions" or something, maybe). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be less confused when you read the article and see that the French three-form system is already covered therein, as are languages that use echo responses (such as "It is.") rather than yes/no words. ☺
  Personally, I think that the correct article to be getting rid of at this point is no, so that no (disambiguation) can stand in its place, with the lead linking to yes and no, just like the lead in yes does. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Um, I'll be less confused when I read which one of the articles?
  
  Factual error in nomination statement: Taemyr said "Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition". In fact, I expressed opposition and continue to oppose due to the above-mentioned material I wanted to add; and after it was converted to a dab page has been (arguably) converted back into an article [1] by another editor but this was reverted. (By the way, apparently the Oct. 3 conversion to dab page was done by cut-and-paste move, repaired on Dec. 20 by Anthony Appleyard.)
  
  Please clarify which article is being proposed for deletion. For example, I wouldn't want to see the relatively lengthy material currently in Yes and no deleted based on a discussion in which users really meant some other article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was mistaken. I had assumed that you agreed that the possibility that Yes is ambiguous is better treated at wt:yes. Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
    The article I nominated for deletion was a pure dicdef of the word yes, and as such had focus on the usage of the word. IMO such an article would not be appropriate for wikipedia.
    
    The current article is far more so my deletion vote is withdrawn. Although I feel the article should focus on the consepts,ie. sentence words and the two(/three/four) form systems, and not on the words. That however is not a discussion for AfD.Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (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.