Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cats(2)
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The result wasKeep per Snow/Nomination Withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
I have no idea what's up with this page. It's problematic because the article subject is 'Fat cat,' yet the article title is 'Fat cats.' But besides that, it's completely original research and there are no reliable sources so pretty much, yeah, it's got to go. the_undertow talk 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Nom Withdrawn the_undertow talk 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced dicdef. I don't think there's enough here salvageable for a transwiki to Wiktionary (which was already done, maybe after the first AFD). I don't think there's enough specific cultural importance to the term to write about, but I'm willing to be surprised. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Should be turned into a disambiguation page as there are at least three unrelated subjects on it currently. Colonel Warden 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep turn into a disambig page. Jonathan t - c 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 'Fat cat' should be the disambig page. This is a page of the plural 'fat cats' which makes no sense because the article is about the singular subject. the_undertow talk 03:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it should be turned into a dab page. I would refrain from creating a Fat Cat page about the "rich, greedy person" unless there is at least a verified source. i said 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have moved to the page to Fat Cat and made it into a disambig page (with references where required). Fosnez 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom Withdrawn per the bold moves by Fosnez. the_undertow talk 03:33, 10 October 2007 (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.