Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recoursed
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 delete. If anyone wants to write a definition on Wiktionary with reliable sources, they are more than welcome to do so. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recoursed
Might fit in a dictionary, but it is pretty self explanatory Ng.j (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wiktionary it might not be for those of us who haven't be in the Canadian military...--victor falk 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in Wikipedia It may also be useful in Wiktionary, but there's nothing terribly wrong with it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- ... apart from the fact that there are no sources (apart from a pseudonymous post on a web discussion forum that is wholly untrustworthy) to enable readers to check the article and the article title doesn't adhere to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's an article to be written on the subject of recoursing. I've found a book (ISBN 0714633542) that has some statistics on the effects of recoursing, for example. But this article isn't it. It isn't even a good stub, because what little it does say about the subject is wrong. The book that I found had nothing at all to do with Canada. This is what one gets when a Wikipedia editor bases an article on a pseudonymous web discussion forum post instead of proper sources, and just makes a hypothesis up off the top of xyr head. It's hard to see the point in keeping incorrect content at an incorrect article title. Uncle G 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete based on Uncle G's comments above. --A. B. (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wiktionary This process can also be known as being 'back-squaded', in the British military. It will never be an article but should be in Wiktionary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wiktionary doesn't want stuff that's wrong, either. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with it? Seems to be a pretty simple term; being held back for the next course. Can't it be simply and easily fixed, then transwiki'd? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wiktionary doesn't want stuff that's wrong, either. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wiktionary This process can also be known as being 'back-squaded', in the British military. It will never be an article but should be in Wiktionary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 21:37, 4 December 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.
