Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ostentatious

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, and a plea for people to listen to Uncle G's complaints about people throwing around "Wiktionary" without checking. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ostentatious

This page seems mostly to bee a dictionary-type page with a couple of quotes, which is what Wikitionary is for. Delete. Scottmso 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a candidate for the Wiktionary. Endomion 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. Uncle G 04:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Scottmso and Endomion about this being a candidate for the Wiktionary unless it is already there. NeoJustin 05:26, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki — (is this an option?) The article is average at best. Should be moved to Wiktionary unless a better definition already exists (most likely). See Ostentatious on Wiktionary. Kareeser|^Talk! 07:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary already has an entry, and this is copied straight out of the 1913 Webster's Dictionary. The Howe quote can be transwiki'd to Wikiquote if they want it (the Addison quote is already there). —Caesura^(t) 17:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per everybody Lotusduck 06:36, 30 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.