Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In perpetuity


 * dictionary definition - Mattingly23 01:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. --Diberri | Talk 01:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Again, I don't think Wiktionary really needs it, esp. with that link to another online dictionary that this was derived from.  It's a dictdef, though, so it's gotta go.  I don't really see a way for it to improve.  If others do, we can all revisit our votes. Geogre 02:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%, but as Wiktioary doesn't interest me much, I leave those sorts of decision up to the Wiktionary folks. If somebody notices the transwiki'd dicdef and sees hope, they can rework it into a proper definition. If not, no skin off my back. --Diberri | Talk 04:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't find that term at Wiktioary so I've entered it - but is that OK? I'm a little confused here on how I enter information that isn't on Wiki anywhere but it is available elsewhere on line? I'm supposed to reference sources and yet because I did its going to be deleted? -- Fee | Talk
 * Hi, and thank you for that. The question really isn't the quality of your work or whether or not you gave a reference, but just which project handles which thing.  In Wikipedia, we delete all articles that are merely dictionary definitions, just because it's an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.  In addition, we have the Wiktionary project for dictionary references.  This particular article in Wikipedia needs to be deleted unless it becomes encyclopedic.  In Wikipedia, we ask contributors to give references (just because of the encyclopedia format), but not in Wiktionary.  If you have entered the word in Wiktionary, then the deletion here won't affect that whatsoever. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to make an encyclopedia form of "in perpetuity," for example, the best way would be to discuss the origins of this legal term, give examples of how the term changes meaning in different contexts, any historical uses, etc. Please don't worry about our excision of this entry from the Wikipedia, because it won't affect the work you do for Wiktionary.  Thank you for contributing, and please, please don't let this discourage you. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Transfer to wiktionary is OK. Now delete it. - Utcursch, August 10, 2004
 * Transwiki to wiktionary if not expanded. I do think that there's something interesting to say about "in perpetuity", but the present version doesn't say anything. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks for your help Geogre. Perhaps an administrator could delete the page as I can't. Thanks again for your patience. -- Fee | Talk
 * We've all got each other's backs here, Fee, even if it looks like there are knives sticking out from time to time. :-) There is no need to take any more action.  At the end of the VfD voting period, the article will be deleted if the vote remains "delete."  Again, be bold in your edits.  This is, hopefully, the only page where you will see negativity. Geogre 01:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This could have good value as an entry of encyclopedic content. I think it should be expanded, but even if it is just edited to a stub format, it should be kept for Wikipedians with legal interest (like myself) to expand in the future. Skyler 01:28, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Skyler. --Dittaeva 20:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary and delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. - UtherSRG 20:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Skyler and Dittaeva. This has the potential to evolve into something along the lines of Time immemorial. Wikisux 02:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)