Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm fuzzy


 * 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 delete, implemented for now as redirect to Transactional analysis. Sandstein (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Warm fuzzy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dicdef, already exists at Wiktionary. I'm still trying to work out exactly what "warm fuzzy" means, as I don't think I can relate to the feeling. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the feeling I get when crappy articles are deleted from Wikipedia. JuJube 10:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – As it already exists at Wiktionary. As a side note, We should be careful what we dismiss as crappy, as this is a personal opinion. The author of the article spent their time and effort contributing to Wikipedia  and should be encouraged and not be dismissed so off-handedly.14:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Shoessss |  Chat
 * People spend a lot of time on hoaxes too, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called hoaxes. JuJube (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is just a definition but before we delete it we should ask is there any scope for it to become a proper article? Is there anything to say about the term other than to define it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would still say delete as an article. The phrase itself leans almost exclusively to just being “Defined”.  In an article context, the phrase would be WP:POV and hence deleted. Shoessss |  Chat  15:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article; agree that it is more suited to just a definition, especially in the context of Transactional analysis.
 * I've moved the citation to Transactional analysis and elaborated/linked the Wiktionary entry at warm fuzzy and left the article as a redirect -- sounds like a good resolution?

Nbarth 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted the redirect for now but kept the citation in that article. I wouldn't object to this redirecting there at all, but please let the AfD finish before redirecting.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:52, 2 December 2007 (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.