The Sims Wiki

Welcome to The Sims Wiki! Don't like the ads? Then create an account! Users with accounts will only see ads on the Main Page and have more options than anonymous users.

READ MORE

The Sims Wiki
Advertisement
The Sims Wiki

← Pages for Deletion | ← Past deletion discussions

Pages for Deletion → Laundry objects
This is an archive of a resolved deletion discussion. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

Page(s) for deletion: Laundry objects

Outcome of discussion: After discussion, the page(s) nominated for deletion was/were kept and not deleted.

User:Dandelion Sprout has nominated this article for deletion because they have created separate articles for all the objects listed in this one. I don't know what should be done here; perhaps keeping this as a hub article would be useful to direct readers to the specific subject articles. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article needs to be deleted; I too think having an overview article that links to the split pages is better than deleting a 12 year old article and potentially breaking links around the Internet. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat inclined to agree with K6ka, as there are two factors I wasn't able to conclude about at the time:
    1) Clothing heaps left behind very often by Sims on lots with washing machines, is technically a laundry object, yet wouldn't fit on any of the 3 pages.
    2) Would a kept-around "Laundry objects" page be merely a very short disambiguation page, a mere redirect to "Washing machine", or would the page have a bit more info than that? Dandelion Sprout (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep for the same reason that we have an article for The Sims 2's aspiration rewards, but also have individual articles for things like the money tree or the Eclectic and Enigmatic Energizer. We could downsize the laundry objects article somewhat by removing redundant information, but it still serves a benefit as a hub for the specific objects mentioned on the page. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is useful to exist as a hub article, so I too shall say keep. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It does seem like there is an agreement that this should not be deleted and kept as a useful hub article. Should the discussion be closed and the deletion tag removed from the article? RedWizard98 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no support for deletion, including from the user who originally nominated the article, the result of the discussion is keep. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Advertisement