Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suckage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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. But, the word exists, and meets the criteria for inclusion to wiktionary, so an entry for it will be written from scratch for Wiktionary. :) --Phroziac (talk) 03:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suckage

dictionary term. I am not sure if this word really exists. See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Suckage (March 2005) Austrian 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or transwiki and merge with Wiktionary:sucks DV8 2XL 23:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is suckage. Delete. Colin M. 23:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. It's notable that the only usage offered was third-hand -- he heard a reporter reading out someone'e letter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BillC (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary, and this is barely even a word. Certainly there's no encyclopedic expansion to be had from it yet a-while. -Splash 00:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, can't this be speedy deleted under WP:CSD-G4 ?? Martg76 03:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Only an admin can confirm this, I believe. For now though, DELETE as suckage Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of material previously deleted via the deletion process. And it sucks. Proto t c 09:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No no, that's not correct now you see - the correct phrase now is "it's suckage" Template:Tongue Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G4 if applicable; if not, my AfD vote is to delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ  10:22:18, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef, not speedy. Thue | talk 18:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It was proposed for speedy deletion because it appears to be a recreation of an article that was previously deleted, via VfD, and therefore is actionable under G4 of the WP:CSD criteria.—encephalon | ζ  04:49:35, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
That speedy clause only holds for "substantially identical copies", which I can tell by looking at the deleted version that this was not. Thue | talk 06:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, I was aware of that, which is why I placed a qualification in my vote above; the only reason I placed the tag at all was that it seemed unlikely that what appears to be a dicdef could be very much different. I placed a note on the Talk Page of the sysop who deleted the original page in March, asking if she wouldn't mind checking if they were indeed different.[1] When you placed your vote above and removed the tag, there was no indication that you had actually seen the original; thus the above. But thanks for clarifying and removing the tag, Thue.—encephalon | ζ  07:13:32, 2005-09-03 (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.