Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugliness
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 was delete. Singularity 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugliness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nothing but a dictionary definition. A merge to Physical attractiveness has been proposed, but there's no discussion area on Talk:Physical attractiveness and there's nothing to merge anyway. Powers T 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A clear case of WP:DICTDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and redirect to Physical attractiveness. Even if there's nothing to merge, a redirect can still be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If Umberto Eco can write a book on ugliness described as of "encyclopedic breadth"[1] the article should probably be expanded not deleted. Being a stub is not a justified reason for deletion imo. --Eleassar my talk 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In general, I don't think that we should redirect to antonyms. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 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.