Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Befouling

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Befouling

Befouling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dicdef + essay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 23:09Z

• Delete. I don't understand. Why do we have a bloated, unsourced essay on a word which was used like in the 1500s? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • bloated? Just H 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN? The Train Defecator is real BTW [1], though probably not notable enough for an article. StoptheDatabaseState 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete doesn't appear notable. Just H 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, soft redirect to wikt:Befoul Guy (Help!) 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry about accidentally deleting the AfD tag, I was editing an old diff. I agree that this unsourced page should either be deleted, or redirected via {{wi}} to Wiktionary. --Elonka 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; look like an OR essay to me; even if verified/sourced, it's still just a dicdef. --MCB 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:12, 22 December 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.