Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilutant


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 keep, merge and redirect. Wikiacc (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dilutant
Nothing links here and this page is not in any category. Tedernst 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. - Tedernst 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That nothing links to an article is not a reason to delete it. Neither is the fact that an article is not in any categories.  Uncle G 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe my reason is wrong. It's a dictionary entry that nothing else links to.  Why does it belong in Wikipedia?  Help me with the reason? Tedernst 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's factual, verifiable, a legitimate term, and goes beyond a typical dictionary definition. Keep. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination states no applicable reason for deletion. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than a dictionary definition. Kappa 20:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Diluent and Redirect. The two words are equivalent and Diluent is more common--Vsion 22:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Identical synonym of diluent. Have any of you voting to keep actually read either of the articles or are you just reflex-voting a la Kappa? / Peter Isotalo 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that you just voted to keep, are you referring to yourself? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never agreed with the rigidly binary interpretation of AfDs because it's in obvious conflict with the idea of Wikipedia not being a rule of law. People constantly refer to AfDs to build consensus in issues regarding article moves and mergers. As long as people do this, I'm going to vote for the option I actually want rather than voting to delete. But if any admin closing this vote interprets my vote as anything other than literally merge and redirect, then my vote defaults to delete. / Peter Isotalo 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this one. I believe there are three discreet and separate options: keep, delete, and merge (or transwiki). None of these ought to be considered a vote for the other, and at count time, none of the votes for one ought to be merged with the votes for another. And Hipocrite is not entirely correct. Not all closing admins count "merge" as "keep". Denni &#9775; 05:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Also a motion to calm the hell down and quit it with the personal attacks, folks. Geez. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to diluent. Denni &#9775; 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Diluent. Either article is a stub as it stands, but I would merge Dilutant into Diluent because Diluent gets significantly more Google hits... --Daedalus-Prime 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. It is more descriptive and better written than Diluent but both need not exist.
 * 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.