Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attribution

Add to this deletion debate


 * Valueless stub created to make a point, see contributions of User:Administrator Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You listed it just a minute after I submitted it. How am I supposed to turn it into an article if you don't give me enough time to write it? Administrator 22:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't look at the times. You've got five days though, so you should be set. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: Still a substub IMO and the clock is ticking away. A proper stub must say what is being described by the article and why it is important. This doesn't say either, it just says that it's a legal term but leaves us to guess what it means, and states that it's important without saying why. I don't particularly want it deleted, but in its current state it would be reasonable and harmless if it was. Andrewa 01:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * How about merge/redirect to reference if no one fleshes it out. Niteowlneils 00:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I could whip out the old pass-out I wrote for my Psychology in Modern Life class on attribution and fill it up with that; how does that sound? Come to think of it, maybe I can donate all my psychology pass-outs to Wikipedia. How well are topics in psychology covered here? Wiwaxia 01:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about redirecting to Attribution theory? Angela. 18:19, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)