Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guesstimate


 * 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   transwiki to Wiktionary. -- jonny - m t  07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Guesstimate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No encyclopaedic information beyond a simple dictionary definition (and no sources) - would suggest transwikifying to en.wiktionary Knepflerle (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki per nom --Numyht (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. The same should be done for the equally useless article ballpark estimate, which has an unlikely explanation for the phrase "ballpark figure".  Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have taken your suggestion and created Articles for deletion/Ballpark estimate. Knepflerle (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have expanded the article with information about etymology, different definitions and usage in statistics and education, all with sources. It is better to improve than delete. There is already a Wiktionary entry, but it says almost nothing. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The new material is an improvement, but it's still nothing beyond a dictionary definition and I still don't see why it wouldn't be better at wiktionary Knepflerle (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Transwiki I just read it with the updates you mention and I must agree with Knepflerle, it would be a welcome expansion to the wikitionary entry Faradayplank (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. The additions make a good dictionary entry; but they are about the word, not the activity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As much as I hate most "transwiki to wiktionary" nominations, I think this one is a good case. The article is about the word, and I have trouble imagining how it could be turned into an article about an "encyclopedic concept". --Itub (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment since there is already a WK article Template:Wi could be used rather than a transwiki template
 * Transwiki to wikitionary of course. -Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Wiktionary is also not paper, entries their can and should include entymology and usage.Yobmod (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pile-on transwiki Madcoverboy (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.