Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"no, ifs, ands, or buts"

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 delete. If you think it should be transwiki'd and it hasn't been (I didn't bother checking), please explain why at my talk page and I'll do take care of it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:16, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] "no, ifs, ands, or buts"

Would be better placed in Wiktionary, but seems not to warrant a Wikipedia article (WP:NOT) haz (user talk) 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, idiom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (but Wiktionary is). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-31 11:08Z
• Delete, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary if you wish. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Avalon 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef incog 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Raggaga 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete AS ABOVE. —This user has left wikipedia 18:52 2006-02-05
• Delete (and transwiki but not a priority). It's more a personal idiosyncrasy to say it - and interpretation is purely opinion, not encyclopaedic. Donama 06:14, 6 February 2006 (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.