- 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 of the debate was No consensus to delete; merging or not can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN concept. There are bunches of google hits, but not all of them are about this. Prod remover didn't so much think it's notable, just wasn't convinced it was NN. Now it's all o' y'all's turn :) - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is my vote for now, but I reserve the right to change it to, say, redirect, if somebody proposes a good redirect target. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - static grass really is a tool used by wargamers to make realistic surfaces. You can find a relatively large number of refs searching for 'wargaming' and 'static grass'. For great justice. 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we pretty much know it's a real tool. The better question here is, how widely is it used? Is it written about in the media? Even cruft-media? Is it a big enough deal to merit its own article rather than a redirect into, say, Wargaming? - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë
- So you accept that it's real, and used, and that people might come here to find out what it is, and you still want to delete it? That's odd. If you want to merge and redirect it, go ahead. That's not really compatible with wanting to delete it. For great justice. 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; not sure what we conventionally do with obscure things like this, but this should be covered somewhere. Besides the bunches of google hits, there are a number of books on google books that talk about this stuff ([1]) and at least the first page seems relevant. So I lean toward keep but merge (into wargaming or Miniature wargaming) wouldn't be the end of the world. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- HEY! Somebody set up us the deletion! Where it go? For great justice. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's back. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All deletions of UKPaulo were destroyed. It seems to be peaceful. For great justice. 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I must apologise for having mistakenly deleted Static grass. I'm not too sure what went on, I was deleting uncontested {{prod}}ded articles based on the highlighted articles on this list. I guess I clicked the wrong link, but am surprised I hadn't noticed that {{prod}} had been removed, maybe I was viewing a cached version of the page :S. Anyhow, I'm sorry about that mistake, and Spangineer has now restored the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All deletions of UKPaulo were destroyed. It seems to be peaceful. For great justice. 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's back. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- HEY! Somebody set up us the deletion! Where it go? For great justice. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, I'm tempted to speedy delete it for no meaningful content and lack of context. Is this something in a game? Is this a real phenomenon of grass? WTF is even being talked about here? At any rate delete whatever this is. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article clearly explains, it's a method of creating realistic looking 'grass' for tabletop wargaming. I'm disapointed that you want to delete it simply because you don't know what it is. See [2] and here for more info. For great justice. 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much that I don't know what it is as the fact that the article doesn't provide any context for it. I still don't know if this is something fictional or something real. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article clearly explains, it's a method of creating realistic looking 'grass' for tabletop wargaming. I'm disapointed that you want to delete it simply because you don't know what it is. See [2] and here for more info. For great justice. 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Eusebeus 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what you mean by that? For great justice. 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- nn = not notable; that is, the topic isn't important/common enough to warrant a wikipedia article. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? In whose opinion? It's a notable part of table-top wargaming model building, which is important to some people. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In Eusebeus's opinion. People have different opinions about what things deserve a wikipedia article, so they all get to discuss the issue here. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? In whose opinion? It's a notable part of table-top wargaming model building, which is important to some people. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- nn = not notable; that is, the topic isn't important/common enough to warrant a wikipedia article. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with and redirect to miniature figure. —Ruud 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Ruud. I would have thought merging with miniature wargaming would make more sense than miniature figure, however. I would agree with Angr that the article is lacking context, and is barely more than a dictionary definition at the moment. Whilst I would agree that static grass is clearly real, I'm not convinced it's something sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article in it's own right (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's never got much potential to become anything other than a few lines worth of definition). However, someone looking up Static grass on WP should see something, and thus a merge and redirect could see the defintion remain in place. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree that redirection is in order, just not deletion. For great justice. 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Ruud. Sandstein 08:57, 8 April 2006 (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.