Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat (racing)

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, since it is already covered at Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat (racing)

Extended definition page that doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Transwiki, perhaps? fuzzy510 01:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep seems slightly more than a dictionary definition even now, as it goes into variations and whatnot, perhaps beyond the scope of what a dicdef would cover, and there's room for expansion. Also it's got quite a few inbound links so it seems like a useful article. --W.marsh 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: a stub at the moment but it seems like it could be expanded or edited into something a bit more appropriate Christopherlame 06:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as an overexplained dicdef. Unlikely to be expanded without further overwriting. B.Wind 06:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, dictionary definition. - Motor (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, lets wait for a while and see if it develops into an encyclopedic article. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. How long do you plan on waiting, though? It's been an unedited stub since March 2005. --fuzzy510 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good sports article. --JJay 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per Nearly Headless Nick. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Already covered at Wiktionary [1]. Peyna 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it has one line in a long list of definitions, or far less than our article. It also has one line on thermal energy. Should we delete Heat or maybe Heat (disambiguation) ? --JJay 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone used a lot of extra words to say the same thing Wiktionary said in one sentence doesn't mean there actually is any more information there. Peyna 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, where some see extrapolation, pertinent details and explanation, others see extraneous verbiage and unnessary bla bla. I mean, why let details get in the way of knowledge and understanding? Maybe we should strip down the wiktionary definition even further to something like heat= preliminary race. That would seem to sum it up in three words rather than their obviously long-winded eleven. N'est-ce pas?--JJay 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Peyna --Guinnog 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Its place in Wictionary is sufficient. Moreover, it doesn't show much room for expansion, and its having been an unedited article since March 2005, according to fuzzy510, proves it.--El aprendelenguas 20:31, 4 June 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.