This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, bordeline nonsense. Alr 22:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary - word is existant and in use in literary criticism DV8 2XL 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy as patent nonsense of the second kind: "irredemably confused". Do not transwiki, as Wiktionary wouldn't want tripe like this, and other Wiki's are not AfD's dumping ground. -Splash 23:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rewite and transwiki. This is not nonsense -- I have no problem following the imagery here, and if this appeard in a critical essay I might even praise the writing. (it is saying that a fomulaic movie or book is like a meal created strictly by recipie, w/no originality, and i agree.) The writing is a bit too poetic for wikipedia, and as it stands it is nothing but a defiination, if not precisely a dicdef. Could possibly be merged into an article on Literary creativity or List of terms in literary criticism (if either existed) or some such topic, but not a proper wikipedia article as it stands, and article titles are not usually adjectives. DES (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not worth the effort to transwiki. --Carnildo 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to formula. -Sean Curtin 01:40, September 1, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.