Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feat

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 deleted as a dic def. On empty pages we already have a line saying "Look for <title> in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project." - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feat

delete link plus dicdef. Seems like it should be speedy but I couldn't think of an exact justification; it's not quite just a link. --Trovatore 04:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef; very few pages link to it jnothman ^talk 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the wiktionary definition, using the {{wi}} tag. I was looking for a suitable redirect within Wikipedia, and all that happened was I got irritated by achievement redirecting to goal (management). Proto t c 11:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment you can certainly move the definition to Wiktionary, but you can't redirect there (transwiki redirects don't work). --Trovatore 14:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment But the {{wi}} works well. See Coreligionist for an example of this. Proto t c 09:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought those uses were mainly intended to deter the re-creation of dicdefs where they keep popping up. If we're going to have one for every slightly non-everyday word, then why not just allow dicdef articles, and merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia? "Feat" is really a word that every native speaker past Grade 7 knows; I don't see any reason to need to link it in article text. --Trovatore 17:08, 8 November 2005 (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.