Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (2nd nomination)


 * 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   snowball keep: wrong forum. The correct solution is by Guest9999. - 7-bubёn >t 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No
Previous AfD discussions of this article:
 * Articles for deletion/No
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Bear with me on this. Here's the executive summary: This is, essentially, a requested move of no (disambiguation) to no.  We're here simply because this article already went through AFD once. Otherwise I'd have taken this to Proposed Deletion.

Why move? Because it makes the situation parallel to the situation with yes, which is an equal-weight disambiguation article that links to yes and no for discussion of the words "yes" and "no". no should do likewise. no (disambiguation) should be moved to the primary title.

It's the existence of the yes and no article, which (nota bene!) didn't exist at the time of the prior AFD discussion, that prompts this. All of the concerns raised in the previous discussion have actually been satisfied and will remain satisfied without this article. Even this concern, raised at Talk:No, has been satisfied. The encyclopaedic article that Brz7 and the participants in the first AFD discussion were envisaging, covering the yes-no word systems that various languages use, including "no" as part of that, has been written. It has simply been written under another title.

Ironically, it was built from the very same situation with yes as is still the case here but which has been fixed for yes. It developed from, which was this page's counterpart for yes, moved elsewhere after yes became the disambiguation. See what it looked like and compare that with how this article currently stands. This article is in much the same state now as that one was, and that one (which was turned around during its AFD discussion) has now become a combined article for both.

We don't need to do this twice. Only one combined article is needed. We now have yes and no, dealing with both words as part of an overall encyclopaedic discussion of the various yes-no word systems in different languages. We simply need disambiguations at yes and no pointing to them.

And we don't need to retain anything from here. Discussion of the grammatical classification of "no" is already in yes and no, sourced to more than one source (in contrast with this article) and covering the subject in greater depth and noting more than just the single point of view (again in contrast with this article). It includes discussion of the grammatical classification of other words expressing disagreement, such as the words in Polish and Russian, for example. It also points out that "No." can be a word sentence, which this article only vaguely implies. All of the linguistic content on this page is already covered at yes and no, and covered better. As for the other content: As pointed out by Peter Isotalo here, again on Talk:No, the other contents of this page don't really belong under this title anyway and already have their own articles.

And we don't need to develop an independent article just because "no" isn't quite like "yes". yes and no already covers that ground, both for English (see its discussion of how "no" differs from "yes" in yes and no) and for other languages (see yes and no). There's no need for a parallel article.

And we don't need to merge anything, or redirect anything, either. When no (disambiguation) is moved here, it merely needs editing so that it links to yes and no at the top like the disambiguation in yes already does.

To reiterate the executive summary, then: This is, essentially, a requested move of no (disambiguation) to no.  This article is entirely superfluous and surplus to requirements. We can do the requested move and lose not a thing.

Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why this is happening as an AFD discussion, and not as part of the normal "requested move" discussion at the relevent talk page? Since we don't want to delete anything really, why not just hold the discussion at the talk page and do the move? --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're here, as I said, because this article already came through AFD once &mdash; with a lot of editors, including you, opining to keep, no less. So technically it's a controversial move, as well as a controversial deletion that cannot be taken through Proposed Deletion.  (I did consider both avenues, and considered this the best route to the least controversy, because it heads off the inevitable "Take it to AFD if you think that!" responses from anyone who notices the prior AFD discussion.)  Albeit that I think that there's a good argument now for deletion &#9786;, and I hope that it won't actually be controversial, it's still technically and potentially controversial.  And I do want an administrator to hit a delete button.  I want it hit either explicitly, or implicitly as part of the move. Uncle G (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let me give my opinion then. As long as the information is not lost, I could care less where it is.  If Yes and No are combined in a single article, and the encyclopedic information from the No article already exists there, then I see no reason why we shouldn't redirect the No article to the Yes and No article; or at worst leave a disambiguation page at No directing people looking for information on the No that we are redirecting to the correct place.  Any particular arbitrary organization of this information (as seperate articles on "Yes" and on "No" OR as a single "Yes and No" article) is fine, so long as the information is readily accessable.  Either configuration works fine, and I have no problem with either.  As far as I am concerned, if you have a good reason to do this, be my guest.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This isn't a move, it's a delete discussion. The wikipedia would be less complete without this article. If anything the article should be expanded with synonymous terms in accordance with the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. There's also a fair dollop of Gaming the system, apparently the 'yes' article which survived two or more AFDs got removed a different way and it looks like you're trying to do the same with no also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep AfD isn't for requesting moves. Its for deletion discussions. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't really the place for this but since there's already a discussion... I'd say move No to No (word) (or similar) then redirect to Yes and no (where all encyclopaedic information on the topic is already included), merging any content as appropriate. Then redirect No to No (disambiguation). Guest9999 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (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.