Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar coated

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. W.marsh 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar coated

Article was transwikied to Wiktionary already, and can't really become anything more than a dictionary entry. --taestell 05:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Should have been a prod. MER-C 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment maybe move to Sugar Coating and look at the process †he Bread 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be sugar coating. Given our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), that one can hire expert witnesses in the process, that there are companies that specialize in the sugar coating of pills, and that there are articles studying sugar coating (PMID 5628349), that was my thought also. However, the article would need pretty much a total rewrite and there's alsready discussion of this process and the reasons for it at tablet#Tablet_coating. Uncle G 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Med's aren't the only things that get sugar coated though, and it would end up being Sugar coating because of Technical difficulties †he Bread 06:52, 4 November 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.