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 just comes under consensus to delete (9 for deletion, 5 against) -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is factually true, it belongs elsewhere, at Pearl Harbor perhaps. This is not a viable stub for an encyclopedia article. --Wetman`

• Delete--DNicholls 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, viable stub. Kappa 13:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to Pearl Harbor as this is not a logical endpoint for a search. Garglebutt 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very common phrase, I don't see the argument for it not being a viable stub. --Pagrashtak 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but eradicate unsubstantiated info. I've studied the subject a fair amount and I've never heard anything along the lines of the anecdote referenced therein. Unless someone can point to a reference for that, I'm going to excise it. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Dictionary entry with a garbled anecdote. Assuming that PBS's research and my recall are both correct. IIRC, the intention was to declare war with only minutes of warning, as was done at Port Arthur, and the delay was caused by the need for manual decoding, not a clerical error properly so-called. I can put researching, sourcing and adding to the appropriate article on my personal agenda. Robert A West 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think a merge with Pearl Harbor is appropriate, as the phrase only relates to it (very) tangentially. As for an argument as to why it's not a viable stub: this is merely a phrase. It's basically a dicdef, with loosely connected information following it. Such articles seem to fall under: Wikipedia is not a dictionary (esp. list of definitions), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (esp. loosely associated topics), and possibly even original research (esp. secondary sources).--DNicholls 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it your opinion then that this article is incapable of expansion beyond the definition? --Pagrashtak 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without slipping into the above mentioned categories, yes. --DNicholls 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a dicdef and an only-tangentally-related anecdote that I'm sure is already part of Pearl Harbour --Carnildo 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone writes an encyclopedic (and non-Pearl-Harbor-related) article on clerical errors PDQ. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If any of it is to be included in a Pearl Harbor article it should not be redirected. -R. fiend 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful page, with a good definition -the removal of the Pearl Harbour example, however, may be justified. Nihiltres 21:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The Pearl Harbor stuff is just nonsense. Anyway, I think this might have a potential to be a real article but I'd need some substantial expansion beyond a dicdef to decide.--Pharos 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DNicholls --Allen3 ^talk 09:55, August 6, 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.