Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olden days

Olden days
Olden days: can't see the point of this substub, seems to have been created due to being linked fron WikiUniversity. Just part of a rather tired phrase (back in the olden days we didn't have them fancy Wikis, we got up at 4 o'clock in the morning and scratched our collaborative community project texts onto granite blocks using rusty nails). --Ianb 21:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You had rusty nails? Kids these days.   We had to use our fingernails.  Delete.  RickK 21:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * You have fingernails? Spoiled! Back before we evolved those fancy hands, we had to gnaw rocks wih our blunt teeth, and that was only after we laid on a rock for two hours to warm up enough to work! (Delete) ClockworkTroll 04:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And you got to sleep in till 4? Jmabel 07:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * in my defense I must state we had to make our own nails using bog-iron ore, and we had to burn our underwear to get it smelted, and we had to add our own tetanus bacteria to the rust, none of this modern shop-bought stuff.--Ianb 08:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You had underwear? You were lucky.  We had to run about naked, and that was after our father beat the clothes off our backs, and we had to do it all while sporting a whopping big case of tetanus. Geogre 16:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * From Fowler:
 * ...The adjective, which is of strange formation & not to be reckoned among the numerous -EN ADJECTIVES, is also peculiar in use; the olden time(s) is common, but outside that phrase the word is usually as ridiculous as Ye substituted for the in the sham-archaic advertisements of shopwindows...


 * At any rate, this must have become an article by accident, delete.  Fire Star 21:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: So now we have to hit "edit" by an article name to add comments? Very ugly page changes, folks.  Back in the Olden days we had an "Add to this discussion" tab to click.  It cut down on edit conflicts and kept the discussions in a subdirectory.  Delete this non-def dictdef. Geogre 00:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that. At first I thought it might be vandalism to the VfD page. Interesting... Fire Star
 * Comment: the discussions are now in subpages, the edit links access those and not the main VfD page. Makes it easier to add links, but the change is not immediately obvious and caught a lot of people off-guard, including myself.--Ianb 08:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dictdef.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this one could have been a speedy, "Very short articles with little or no definition or context." Since apparently this portion of the speedy criteria is now under discussion, I won't do what I've done in the past, i.e. speedy it while retaining the content here to allow discussion to proceed. I don't believe for a minute that this will give anybody a useful headstart on writing a full article on anything. Ta dum dum, in Olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but now God knows (tiddle-tiddle-pom-pom) anything goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. '''Entire content of the article is currently
 * folklore and storytelling


 * I have substantially improved this article. ugen64 01:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: err, no you haven't. --Ianb 05:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)