Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preignition
Preignition was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was
Dictdef. Include into apprpriate articles. Transwiki to Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 03:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep until transwiki complete. We already have a way to handle dicdefs - mark with Template:move to Wiktionary. You should not list for VfD until you've performed the transwiki. -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Really? Where is this supposed rule documented? RickK`
- Why hasn't this been advertised? We discuss Transwikis on VfD constantly, and nobody has bothered to mention this supposed policy? Or is it another case of Netoholic trying to create and enforce policy in one fell swoop? RickK 19:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- A look at the history of the transwiki page shows that I've never edited it. Rick: please stop attacking others when they point out how wrong you are. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- RickK, wrong? No! Surely you jest! GRider 22:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Guys, please, calm down a little and stop sniping. While the policy does exist, the reason why it's rarely used is because that many VfD candidates gets voted for transwiki and delete, in which case, at the appropriate step, there's no need to put it on VfD as VfD has already determined that delete is necessary. (The original VfD was not on an article in the Transwiki process.) This case is different, because it is already marked to Transwiki. The proper thing to do is Transwiki it and the VfD it, although I fail to see what significance this delay has. If a delete is voted for, nobody is going to delete until after the transwiki, if a keep is voted for, you're not going to delete anyways, so what is the difference between a couple of days? -Vina 21:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Why hasn't this been advertised? We discuss Transwikis on VfD constantly, and nobody has bothered to mention this supposed policy? Or is it another case of Netoholic trying to create and enforce policy in one fell swoop? RickK 19:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Really? Where is this supposed rule documented? RickK`
- keep I think this could be expanded beyond a dicdef. Dunc|☺ 10:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important topic. If there's already an article that covers this material, let me know and I'll change my vote to a redirect. --Improv 20:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and KEEP. GRider 22:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly good wikipedia material. Plenty of scope for expansion. Robinh 21:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, quite extensible. I'd like to see a picture of what happens if you let it go on for too long, for instance :-) Kim Bruning 19:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Retain -Joseph (Talk) 02:58, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.