Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No

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 yes, keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

It is disputed whether or not there should be an article about "no", as some have claimed this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, we do currently have an article about "yes". This was originally brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I'm moving it over here and unredirecting for now so a discussion about the article can occur. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. This not on only violates WP:Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, it also violates WP:NOT.--SJP 14:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an article about the meaning, origins and usage of a word. It has no encyclopedic content beyond that traditionally found in an unabridged dictionary (plus some trivia that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article either). I see no possibility of expansion past the purely lexical content. Note: Once transwiki is complete, either replace with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page or return the contents of no (disambiguation) to this location. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO, there is the possibility that the article may develop beyond the lexical definition. --gala.martin (what?) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to wikitionary. This is just a dict def, not an encyclopedia entry. meshach 15:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article goes beyond the definition, and I feel it can also be expanded beyond the lexical context Carter | Talk to me 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does go beyond the dictionary definition, and it is feasible to write a longer article on the subject. Hut 8.5 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since there's an article called yes, why not keep this one? If no is deleted, might as well delete yes. As above said, very commonly used word, also interesting article. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While wikipedia is not a dictionary, it does and should contain entries on words where such words can support an encylopedic article. This one is likely to have enough information to be expanded into an encyclopedia article, and such should be kept. Not every word in existance will be able to do this, but this one clearly will, and thus should be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Hut. jj137 (Talk) 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayron32. Barsportsunlimited 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No to deleting No aka keep, one of the most used words in the English language, this article also has content beyond a dictionary definition and could most definitely be expanded. TonyBallioni 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Jayron32 and the fact that yes has an article.--Cartman005 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On deleting this article, I say no. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as dic def which can't be expanded, most of the keep voters had no good reasoning for keeping the article. This is a Secret ^account 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes~~. No (to deletion). Yes is clearly fleshed out and interesting. I see no reason why no should not be of similar potential. --Gwern (contribs) 21:16 3 November 2007 (GMT)
Keep, there is plenty that can be said about words that is not suitable for a dictionary. John Vandenberg 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best article but more than a dicdef or dab. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the potential to be expanded more than a dicdef (It has an arts section already, although a culture section would be better). It might become the next thou too bad I can't help develop the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. The necessary companion to our article on yes. There are doubtlessly famous "no's" in history, and the article has potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
( ﾟ³ﾟ)三№♥ tgies 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost everyone. JuJube 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's an encyclopedic subject, though what is presently there hardly justifies it. JJL 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who made the redirect in the first place. I honestly see nothing here of value. There's the definition of the word, an explination it's a "refusal skill" (can be merged to Just Say No or refusal skills, it's not really about the word "no"), "Political No's" (makes no sense), and "Saying no in the arts" (that's a pop culture trivia section in disguise). Delete this article, move the disambig page back. And I say do the same to yes as well. --UsaSatsui 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just don't know about you! Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and almost everyone above. Bearian 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This article contravenes WP:NOT as stated by SJP. The article has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the linkage between the essay, songs, television programs or films listed.--Gavin Collins 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the one who expanded the article to try to make it an encyclopedic article. The current state is not satisfactory but the article has potential. There were new edits last days that I think indicate we together can make it a better article. As far as I can see from the amount of discussion here, there are quite a few people thinking about the article now. Let's say yes to no and edit! --Brz7 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.