Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outwith (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was move to wikt is the obvious choice, but it already has a def there. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Outwith
The article is still a dicdef. It is already in wiktionary. There's no need for a tiny stub saying exactly the same thing in wikipedia. Stringops 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...though it was nice while it lasted :)Tom 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It should be deleted and links to this Wikipedia article should really be redirected to the Wiktionary article if it is thought necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, please follow procedures for nomination as stated in WP:DP. This is not really the place for transwiki talk. An article with the same title can be found at wiktionary here however it is not the same. Transwiki it and then nominate for deletion don't do the opposite (if that is even possible). I can also foreshawdow, if there was a little research done, some example that are used in common practice. I don't know if these example would be better suited for wikipedia or wiktionary, no matter the case, keep until transwiki process is complete. --CyclePat 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can see no appropriate information that is not, albeit more economically, currently in the wiktionary entry. What exactly is there to transwiki? Stringops 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary as per CyclePat. -- P199 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has already been moved to wiktionary. Isn't procedure to delete dicdef articles after they have been transwikied? Stringops 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid encyclopaedic topic. --Mais oui! 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:ISNOT a dictionary. Stringops 15:06, 5 April 2006 (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.