Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dine and dash


 * 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 of the debate was keep after rewrite. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dine and dash
A personal, original research stub about not paying at dinner. Yep, someone wrote an article about that. Nothing worth keeping in an encyclopedia here. Harro5 09:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: as of 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC), all delete votes had been cast before the article was expanded with evidence of significance and reliable references. Most comments prior to Uncle G's vote do not apply to the article as it now stands. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - While I think this could be a valid article, the current one contains basically nothing of value. So if it's not cleaned up very soon I suggest deletion. Bergsten 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - After good clean up by Uncle_G. Bergsten 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't have a policy that Wikipedia is not a theft manual? Oh well, call it original research. Gazpacho 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * not a vote this might be worthy of wiktionary... --Dschor 10:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have an entry that explains what 'dine' means, and we have an entry that explains what 'dash' means. I don't think this is necessary. --Last Malthusian 12:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment I don't know, Last Malthusian, dash can mean a couple different things - maybe this entry needs to be disambigued :) -- Taiichi  « talk » 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spurious neologism, original research or unencyclopaedic. Take your pick. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * May need to be cleaned up and/or moved to Wiktionary, I'm not sure. But it is a legitimate, widely used term, anyways - delete is likely the wrong approach. WilyD 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflict Merge to Restaurant Keep. The term is older than dirt (and in fairly common use ) and the crime itself is surely older. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Restaurant (unless there's a better place). This is as notable as shoplifting, and it's ridiculous to call it a "spurious neologism". -- 69.0.126.57 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Whoops, I wasn't logged in.  That vote was me. -- Plutor 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only did someone write a Wikipedia article about it, but the British Columbia government included it in its guide to its employment law. This isn't a neologism (One reference cited in the articl is dated 1992.) and it isn't original research (It is fair to presume that if the B.C. ministry has accepted it as part of employment law, it's a concept that has gained a fair amount of traction in the world at large.). Keep. Uncle G 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Uncle G's expanded version, which makes it amply clear that this is (a) not a neologism, and (b) a subject that has significant legal context in Canada. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep after Uncle G's rewrite. Bravo! B.Wind 00:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. --Alan Au 02:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten article. Tim Pierce 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, decent article. Rhobite 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. -Sean Curtin 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 12:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this nice rewrite. Turnstep 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now WP-worthy -- Taiichi  « talk » 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep new version. Stifle 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.