Talk:Dilbertian
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
Start a discussion about improving the Dilbertian page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Dilbertian" page.
