Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rung
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk)
18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rung
Dictionary definintion, already in Wiktionary as rung (Definition 1 under Noun). — Kjammer ⌂ 05:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. GTBacchus 05:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and can't be expanded that I can think of. Qaz (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand, possibly using material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. [1] Kappa 09:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- How much more can be expanded beyond dic-def? Even if the 1911 Britanica article was coppied word for word, it'll still be a dictionary definition. Because all it says is what the word means in English, Scottish, and Old English, all of witch can be covered in a dictionary entry. Best solutions I can come up with are expanding the Wiktionary definition, and/or merge with ladder. — Kjammer ⌂ 17:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There isn't much in the Britannica that would ever advance this past a substub. PacknCanes 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, echoing above. Dottore So 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A rung is a rung is a rung. That's what the Wiktionary is for. - Sensor 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, foppish japery. Proto t c 11:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:09, 15 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
