Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numpty

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 Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numpty

Dictionary entry. (and is it really true?) --Aleph4 20:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 20:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. It's a real word. It may be slang, but it'sfairly widely used, primarily in Scotland but also throughout the rest of the UK. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's common in the UK generally (especially the uk.rec.* Usenet hierarchy) but it's a dicdef for all that. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and move to Wiktionary Term is definatly real and in moderatly common usage. Astaroth5 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per KeithD and Astaroth5. Certainly not a common term throughout the UK, given that I've never heard it anywhere in the country in my life, but the more modest claims the article makes appear to be true and appropriate for Wiktionary. — Haeleth Talk 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Always check Wiktionary first, before suggesting transwikification. Uncle G 07:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia article contains a more complete definition, (well, apart from meaning (a)) so merge/transwiki is still relavent Astaroth5 08:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. You yourself said immediately above that the article should be rewritten. There's no point in rewriting an article here and then transwikifying it. If the article needs to be written afresh, as you state, then anything that is to be written should be written in the dictionary directly. Uncle G 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Rewrite then move, copy and paste the content, new (similar) content to wikitionary, what does it matter so long as the relavent content moves to the proper place? Astaroth5 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It matters in that it is sheer laziness and a knowing and deliberate imposition on the editors who transwikify articles. If the article needs rewriting, then the right thing to do is to write the content in the actual place that one wants the content to end up, not to write it somewhere else entirely and then ask other editors to perform the complex process of copying what one has written to the place that one desires it to be. Uncle G 11:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wiktionary. It is a common term of mild abuse in Scotland but is not encyclopedic. Keresaspa 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• move to wiktionary UkPaolo 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly a word. Used as slang, heard on Radio 2 Terry Wogan show and in chat rooms in UK in past 2 weeks (20 Nov 05)
  • That's not an argument that is relevant here in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. It's an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 09:54, 21 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.