This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
No reason was given for the tagging, but I assume it's because it reads more like a dictionary definition. I've tidied it so it meets the guidelines, but none of the bluelinks mention the word Accoutrements and one (equipment) leads to a dab.
Boleyn2 (
talk)
14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree with the tagging, and with your assessment.
NOTADICT, nor a thesaurus in this case. The lack of need to mention the word, and the lack of a WP topic for which it would be a reasonable candidate as title, makes this a speedy candidate under {{db-disambig}} which reads in relevant part
it is an
orphaned disambiguation page which either
disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a
primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title
I'm removing the entries, without activating the template until there's been a little more time for anyone who gives a damn for the accompanying Dab page to notice why it's about to evaporate like, hmm, the last gasp of a
black hole. --
Jerzy•
t16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)reply
It seems relevant that
Accoutrement, had a
VfD, nominated 3 minutes after creation and described at its talk page as follows:
I believe an article about accoutrements should be created. Accoutrements can be accessories to attire, aswell as military implements and home decor. Further description is nessisary and the redirect to clothing should be removed.
Lucky 2320:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Specifically:
_ _ The request for the
questionable plural title represents that 7-month, <100-edit, colleague's nearly unsupported disregard for the VfD result. (BTW, that colleague strains their expectation of receiving
AGF, by insinuating (implausibly) that the VfD discussants were so stupid as to reject "Accoutrement" without having also implicitly rejected "Accoutrements" for the same reasoning.) _ _ The diffident discussion (versions of "can be expanded", with only the creator's claim hinting at how, and without efforts to do so; nominator neutral despite saying "I honestly don't see how it could be expanded") resulted in "Keep", construed by closer as conversion to a Rdr to
Clothing which was consented to by silence. _ _ The support that "Accoutrements" did eventually find a year ago was tacit, in the form of one editor who converted that Rdr to a bad Dab. (Several more did edit it, but only to the extent of bypassing Dabs & other obvious single-technical-fix edits; only Boleyn fixed even the completely objective Dab-guideline violations.)
The Keep result involved the claim that expansion was possible but 3 minutes was inadequate time for it (which is pretty silly when VfD/AfC has over and over led to rescue of a worthy topic's article in those 5 or 7 days). One now has to suppose that those discussants would change their view on expandability in light of 4.5 years' failure to expand it beyond a couple more dictdefs. The generosity of delaying the speedy deletion is increased, rather than decreased, by the fact of a previous deletion discussion: this is not a summary execution, but recognition that the second chance granted in VfD was a waste. --
Jerzy•
t18:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)reply
My initial rejection of the speedy was correct for several reasons. Please read
Template:Db-disambig. Firstly the page is not an
Wikipedia:Orphan therefore the template should not have been used. Secondly even had it been an orphan it fulfilled neither criteria 1 or 2. It failled criteria 1 because it is not called
Accoutrements (disambiguation). It failled criteria 2 because it did actually disambiguate. Therefore the request for speedy was doubly incorrect.
Polargeo (
talk)
11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply