This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this article has potential for expansion including the effect on staff health and safety, legal conditions and logistics. Kappa 14:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, in case someone didn't know what 24/7 meant they could come here. Although we expect everyone should know this some people may not. It is not copyright infringed and the website isn't having space issues. Although perhaps it should be moved to Wiktionary, but unfortanutly no one goes there in comparison to wikipedia. Redwolf24 19:27 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (this is an anonymous vote disguised as a real vote, see the page's history ugen64)
* Delete - The edit history has been moved. This has about .1% chance of every becoming more than what it is, and if it every did I doubt they'd use 24/7 as the article name. Kevin Rector 17:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the potential for expansion that Kappa sees. All of the instances of this contraction in other articles could be replaced by the full phrase without loss (and indeed to the benefit of the article concerned in a couple of cases). And articles such as shopping hours are better disposed to discuss particular legal concerns. Weak delete. Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef, with no encyclopedic potential. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Stop acting like children nanaszczebrzeszyn (anonymous vote struck out by ugen64)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.