Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essoin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essoin

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

Page has existed for two and a half years, tagged as a stub soon after creation, with no development. Original author has made no contributions since July 2004, so seems to be totally abandoned. Probably capable of no more than a dicdef in any case. Emeraude 14:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless we can verify it and produce some credible evidence it might ever be more than a single sentence. Stubs are fine, if there's potential for an Actual ArticleTM but this does not seem to show that possibility. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Although it is a valid legal term under English law[1][2], I don't think the article can be expanded much past what it is. As a dictionary definition it should be sent to Wiktionary. --Charlene 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - it's just a dicdef as it stands. SkierRMH 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - vote changed due to UncleG's work, much beyond a dicdef now! SkierRMH 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - User:Uncle G has been busy. Take a look at it now and you may want to change your "vote"s. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done User:Uncle G - very interesting. I nominated the article thinking nothing could be done with it and I'm now happy to be proved wrong, so I withdraw the nomination and vote Keep. (And I've corrected the misspelling ession that has been there since creation.) Emeraude 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep after improvement SUBWAYguy 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a short article of good quality. Choess 23:42, 12 January 2007 (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.