Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rulebook (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 was delete W.marsh 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rulebook (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:DICDEF This page had previously been nominated several months ago and was kept as a no consensus decisicion. The keep votes suggested the article had potential for expansion - it has languished unchanged as a 1 sentence dicdef ever since. Arkyan 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely has potential!  I am surprised that the article is a stub!  --Nevhood 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a dictionary definition. -- Whpq 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No content. It is the second nomination, so potential is not a good arguement anymore.--Sefringle 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki To wiktionary. But with a better definition that the current one. - Denny 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Sefringle. "Definitely has potential!" might have been a persuasive argument in the first AfD discussion, but more than six months have now passed with no expansion or improvement. Seems unlikely to ever be more than a WP:DICDEF. -- Satori Son 13:52, 25 February 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.