Talk:Dilbertian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

from VfD:

Finding 671 Google hits for the term, I've added it to the Dilbert article. Even if we accept it as a notable neologism, though, it's dicdef and adequately covered by the mention in Dilbert. Delete. JamesMLane 19:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, dicdef Gazpacho 19:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never heard of this as a DNRC member... - RedWordSmith 19:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the content is now in the Dilbert article, there is no need for its continuance in another form. Geogre 22:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Make a Deletian, it's just a standard English formation from Dilbert. We don't need an article on Gilbertian for W. S. Gilbert or Albertian for Prince Albert or Robertian for Robert either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Improv 03:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If the info is in Dilbert, redirect there. siroχo 08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • A redirect to Dilbert would be harmless. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's common enough in speech to deserve a redirect. -- Jmabel|Talk 22:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dilbert and make sure it's mentioned there.-PlasmaDragon 16:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end mvoed discussion