Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappointment

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 keep, seems enough arguments that it can be improved. But will it?!?!?!?! Neil (►) 10:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment[edit]

Can never really be more than a dicdef. Currently the article is in an awful state and it would be better to transwiki anything useful to wiktionary and delete, but there is nothing useful so it should be deleted. GDonato (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or redirect to emotion. IMO, this is an encyclopedic topic, but the current article is truly a disappointment. --EMS | Talk 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we could redirect to Frustration, it's similar. GDonato (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd like to point out that when this was nominated, it was in a bad state because it had recently been vandalized. I've reverted the vandalism; I'm not saying it's any better now, but I just thought I'd point that out. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or merge with emotion. --Patrick 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Please don't transwiki, I'm sure wiktionary has a definition already. Kappa 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to emotion or similar. JJL 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That will certainly cause disappointment (and frustration). But I think an encylopedia is supposed to explain emotions rather than cause them. Kappa 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem that this could be expanded somewhat, although it's been around for about a year and hasn't been significantly expanded yet. The forlorn snow cone lying on the ground was a nice touch however. Bongwarrior 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is a great Disappointment in itself, sombody please improve it--12345ka 23:35, 25 May 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.