Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counsel
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 16:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
counsel[edit]
This page has been around for almost a year and in the Wiktionary queue for four months. In all that time it has not grown into an encyclopaedia article (as per the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice) clearly demonstrating the improbability of this expanding into an article. Wiktionary already has an entirely separate Wiktionary:counsel, so transwikification is uncessary. 81.138.100.115 13:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This substub definition of a real thing needs to preserved somewhere because 17 pages link to it.
Deletion would mean continuous recreation of more definitions.Merge into List of legal topics or similar. Kappa 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)- P.S. Things have no chance of organic growth when there's a wiktionary tag on them. Kappa 15:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? They can still be edited. Radiant_* 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes but the tag tells people not to. Kappa 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- False. The tag says exactly the contrary. Read the second sentence of Template:Move to Wiktionary. And we're not exactly short of examples of articles where such expansion has actually happened. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- The tag tells people only to expand if they can make a (presumably complete) article, so it prevents incremental growth. Maybe we can discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary#Wiktionary_tag_of_doom. Kappa 16:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- False. The tag says exactly the contrary. Read the second sentence of Template:Move to Wiktionary. And we're not exactly short of examples of articles where such expansion has actually happened. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- Yes but the tag tells people not to. Kappa 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? They can still be edited. Radiant_* 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion would mean continuous recreation of more definitions. — Not necessarily. Removing redlinks, if it has been decided to do this, is part of the Wikipedia:deletion process. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- P.S. Things have no chance of organic growth when there's a wiktionary tag on them. Kappa 15:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Dicdef. And remove links to the page from other articles. People love to overlink some pages and it should not be encouraged. -R. fiend 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere where it's explained in context. No need for this dicdef page. Radiant_* 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Dicdef. Remove the redlinks. DaveTheRed 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lawyer. Jonathunder 05:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lawyer. Kevin Rector 19:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.