Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playdate

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 speedily deleted by NCurse as already transwikied . There seems to be some debate as to whether this article should be kept anyway; seeing as it's been deleted now, please take your concerns to Deletion Review if you want to continue the discussion (which has not had a comment for over 5 days now). --ais523 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playdate

Dictdef, and unlikely to expand beyond one. The content has already been transwikied; it can be found here at wiktionary. Picaroon9288 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, it's already been transwiki'd. It also has no potential of expansion beyond a dicdef, so I tagged it. ColourBurst 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  A5 reads: "Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." The article hadn't been discussed at afd at all; that's why I created this subpage. I just wanted to make sure that all steps of the process were followed prior to deletion. Picaroon9288 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete definition ReverendG 21:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and restore since someone's already speedied it. I disagree with ColourBurst, there's plenty of room for expansion here, and all stubs start out as dicdefs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "All stubs start out as dicdefs" is wrong. (Per WP:IAR, I'm commenting here rather than closing the AfD and suggesting that User:Badlydrawnjeff take it to WP:DR.) Full text of the article was transwikied, in case anywone was wondering if something was lost. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it really wrong? Either way, the speedy was certainly premature. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree on both parts:
      1. Some articles do, and all should, start out with something more than a definition.
      2. An article which consists only of a definition can be speedily deleted, without prejudice to re-creation if something more can be said. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any speedy deletion criteria for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it would match A3: Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This particular definition does only consist of a rephrasing of the title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 17 October 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.