Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When?

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - did just as Uncle G suggested. when? and where? redirected to Five Ws, what? kept and Primary Questions and Secondary Questions deleted - SimonP 13:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

When?, Where?, What?, Primary Questions, Secondary Questions[edit]

An essay on the question, when? Kelly Martin 01:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re-direct to Interrogative word, just as I did a while ago with How?. Georgia guy 01:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've boldly changed how? to redirect to Five Ws instead, to match the suggestion below. Uncle G 13:41, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Redirect i agree with Georgia guy. --Howard547 01:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I understand the purpose of the redirect, but I disagree that it's necessary. This article is lodged at w-h-e-n-question mark. If a person puts that into the search/go box on Wikipedia, then that person is probably not looking for actual content. The article itself is back to the tinfoil hattery. (In case anyone wants to be hypercorrective, the criterion is "not verifiable.") Geogre 01:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Factual knowledge again - delete--Doc Glasgow 02:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on Where? has also popped up. Harro5 04:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of When?, Where?, What?, Primary Questions, Secondary Questions for reasons above. Not verifiable/essay. Eric119 06:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added VfD headers to Secondary Questions, What?, What? and Where?. Since the User has gone crazy with this stuff and isn't responding, I've blocked him for 24 hours and will ask him to discuss his actions with others when he comes back. RickK 06:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The user has responded. From Special:Contributions/Norhuc:
  - 05:50, 2005 May 15 Secondary Questions (Explaining new concepts in 'questions' for the greater edification of knowledge in general)
  - 05:37, 2005 May 15 Primary Questions (A new concept which needs explaining for the edification of this encyclopedia and knowledge in general)
  - 05:23, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - The clean up work continues!)
  - 04:57, 2005 May 15 Why? (Added information about the 'question' of 'why?')
  - 04:49, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still cleaning up this article)
  - 04:34, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still cleaning this article up)
  - 04:32, 2005 May 15 What? (Just creating a new page for a needed concept for the edification of the encyclopedia and knowledge in general)
  - 04:23, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still re-editing and making more room on this page)
  - 04:09, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - To clean this up, I am moving some of the articles which have less content)
  - 04:01, 2005 May 15 When? (Added more information and corrected syntax. Instead of deleting this article, perhaps, others should just edit their views on this article. All articles are created for the edification of knowledge!)
- Uncle G 06:48, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  - This only suggests to me that the user doesn't understand why the articles were nominated. An article about a fringe metaphysical theory with verifiably many followers is OK. Articles that present it as the one true theory, or present its details out of context, are not. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. Gazpacho 07:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. Redirect to Interrogative word. El_C 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Andycjp sometime on 15 May 2005
- User made comment at 7:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [1].
Delete. Don't redirect these because of the question marks on the end -- they are extremely unlikely searches. Quale 07:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be surprised. The author wikified several interrogatives in Factual knowledge. Articles for who? and why? already existed. Uncle G 12:19, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. Delete or redirect to Interrogative word. I prefer deletion, since a redirect wouldn't be very useful. - Mike Rosoft 11:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all. -MarSch 13:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except what? which was rewritten. -MarSch 17:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to redirect where? and when? to Five Ws instead (and add the necessary disambiguation to what?, who? and why?). Uncle G 13:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Rewritten article what?. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
My sympathies to the closing administrator sorting this all out. For clarity, my opinion is:
- when? — Redirect to Five Ws
- where? — Redirect to Five Ws
- what? — Keep as rewrite about the film by Roman Polanski
- Primary Questions — Delete as unverifiable original research, per Eric119
- Secondary Questions — Delete as unverifiable original research, per Eric119
Uncle G 13:57, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
If these are deleted, then How? should be as well. see [2] 132.205.15.43 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fully concur with Uncle G. R adiant _* 13:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.