Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interim


 * 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 keep. Sandstein 11:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Interim

 * — (View AfD)

WP:WINAD PhilipR 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to existing Wiktionary if possible; else delete and move Interim (album) to this title. Make into dab - Apparently this article was created in good faith in order to provide something for all the people who had erroneously linked to Interim from an article expecting a definition. The linking articles need to be remediated to link to Wiktionary. Cheers, PhilipR 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (vote changed 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete, interim already at Wiktionary. hateless 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ACK - with the number of articles coming into this one, there is surely a way to expand this article, isn't there? Now someone's just going to move that crummy Interim (album) back in that slot, and all 8000 links there will be wrong. If there is ever a case to WP:IAR, it's now, especailly as the article could expand. -Patstuarttalk 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, delete and unlink all the links to it from other articles. Really I don't think this could be made into a proper article, it's a dicdef for sure. Why other editors go about making "interim" a link is beyond me. If anyone moves Interim (album) back to Interim, track them down and impale them with a trout. Herostratus 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I de-linked it from most everywhere, therefore this article can now be deleted. (There are a few links to "the Interim" (capitalized) which was apparently some sort of renaissance Church thingy. Those should remain and perhaps someday someone will write an article about "the Interim", whatever it is.) Herostratus 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Why the heck are people wikilinking that? Maybe we could make it a disambig page, saying "1. Interim, 2. Interim (church thingy) (with red link; possibly it refers to something with an article already?), 3. Interim (album)" Patstuarttalk 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly as disambiguation per Patstuart. Note that lots of other wikipedias have a page corresponding to this (de:Interim, fr:Intérim, it:Interim, simple:Interim, sv:Interim). Some of them are dicdefs, or usages that don't occur in English, but there is probably enough for a decent page here. The Simple English page is based on the dicdef but gives examples that might be beyond the scope of a mere dictionary entry. These could probably be expanded (e.g. list of interim officials, etc.) Note that in the opening definition, interim should be treated as a noun (which it can be, as in "in the interim") instead of the adjective ("interim president," which can be viewed as a noun in apposition). The reason people link it is perhaps it is deemed possible that someone will not understand the usage, the same reason people link floruit (a similar page to this one, in that it is basically a definition with example, but which seems to be well established by the community). Rigadoun (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the church thingy is basically an interim agreement/ceasefire in the religious wars of the 16th century, and could be given as examples in that section of the page. I believe the links in this case refer to the Augsburg Interim, but I'm not sure since there was another interim that same year (according to the de: page). Rigadoun (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * simple has virtually no WINAD policy; see e.g. simple:About. - PhilipR 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true, but I think this page in particular is beyond a dicdef. (The Swedish page was the one that is most like a dicdef.) Anyway, I have greatly expanded this page as per my comments and think it is no longer close to a dicdef, though it is clearly related to usage. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a disambiguation page. Rigadoun (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, now, obviously, and kudos to Rigadoun for his great work on the article. Of course, this is after I went and delinked it from a couple dozen articles.... argh, oh well. Herostratus 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Length of article isn't a mitigating factor for WP:WINAD.  That said, Rigadoun's additions do go a long way toward making the case for a dab.   I'm convinced that the article is a viable dab as is, with redundant content refactored out. - PhilipR 17:46, 14 December 2006 (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.