Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trasvasement

Trasvasement seems to be a made-up term. No dictionary listings that I can find (haven't tried OED), and all google hits appear to be Wikipedia derived. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:39, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It is a real term, the correct spelling is transvasement Transvasement is a real French term, delete. -- Graham  :) | Talk 22:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If we cannot get prove that it is a real word, suggest moving the content to Canal (or steal the French word) . --Zigger 23:25, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

I just added a missing VfD notice to the article, so please extend this vote. --Zigger 23:25, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Have moved to Apr 28, article will now be dealt with at appropriate time. -- Graham :) | Talk 00:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting concept, but it is a misspelling of the French word transvasement which is an actual French term for a water transfer as indicated. But it seems to have no currency at all in English, appearing only in French web sites. A Google search on the phrase "transvasement of" (which would presumably produce many hits if were English term) produces a single Google hit. -- Decumanus | Talk 05:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Verb "transvase" is in my OED, "transvasement" is obvious though there is no quote for it specifically. Good Wiktionary material, seems hard to make into worthwhile encyclopedia entry. Stan 05:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That doesn't automatically follow in my opinion. If it did there would be more than one google hit for the term on an English website. -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There's far more stuff in books than has made it to the net, especially non-techie stuff. Very revealing to pick some in-depth material out of literature or medieval history, see how little of it is actually online. Stan 18:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The Army Corps of Engineers would presumably have used the term on one of their many web sites if it was in actual English language use. Moving water around is a large part of what they do. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:22, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not how the Army works though - acronyms are more their style. And is anybody really suggesting that the US Army is more of an authority on the English language than the Oxford English Dictionary? Stan 21:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what the Army Corps of Engineers is. They aren't a bunch of grunts in tanks, they're essentially a government-run civil engineering firm. They are the authority, not on language, but on building structures to move water. If they aren't using the term, it likely isn't being used in the U.S. (Google hits supporting the theory that it's not being used anywhere at all). -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:06, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Check my user contributions, you'll see I'm all too familiar with the various corners of the US military. :-) But please go find an actual 20-volume OED and try Googling all the words on a random page; I guarantee you'll find a dozen that are officially part of English, and attested with quotes from English-language sources, and for which Google comes up with no hits on English web pages. For all you or I know, the Corps used "transvasement" routinely a century ago, then stopped - while some historical documents are on the web, millions more are only on paper, sitting in boxes in the National Archives or wherever, and may never be scanned in. Stan 22:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I lost what argument you were actually trying to make. &lt;Goes back, reads&gt; Oh, right, wiktionary and delete. Obsolete terms do belong in a(n unabridged) dictionary. I was trying to make the point that it wasn't in current usage, which was entirely irrelevant. Whoops. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:40, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a word in English, this article is still a dictionary definition. Move to Wiktionary (with this discussion). Rossami 21:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)