Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raghead


 * 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. Sr13 (T|C) 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Raghead

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

belongs to wiktionary, togetherw woth usage examples. Non-expandable dicdef. `'mikka 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * transwiki to wiktionary - the term does not warrant an article on its own merits - Tiswas (t/c) 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4 ordinary (not talk or special) pages point to it. If transwikiing, leave a stub here pointing to the Wiktionary page, as there seems to be no way to #REDIRECT between wikis: something like this happened with Vial. Anthony Appleyard 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just delink them. And there is a way in our case: raghead in the very rare case when you really want it. `'mikka 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki not enough content to warrent an article, because it is a dictionary definition.--Sefringle 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP the article, but it does need expansion. Padishah5000 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you have any ideas how it can be expanded. The whole point of my nomination is that it cannot IMO. `'mikka 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I understand where you are coming from, and I do agree that these "hate" terms really belong in the dictionary, as opposed to an encylopedia. My concern really has more to do with the fact that "other" terms of similar meaning towards other groups currently have wiki's. It is probably a question of fairness, more than anything. Maybe I will give it a shot and detailing the history of the term and it's use, if you think thats a good idea. If not, just leave me a message! Padishah5000 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * transwiki and delete. Mukadderat 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. KazakhPol 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * transwiki to wiktionary. Looks like just a term definition, and not a concept worthy of an entire article. - BierHerr 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Caknuck 19:54, 20 April 2007 (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.