Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reworkability

: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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Reworkability]]=

:{{la|Reworkability}} ([{{fullurl:Reworkability|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reworkability}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Seegoon (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, for some reason it reminded of a Bud Light commercial, it doesn't have notability... Tavix (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty obvious case of WP:DICT. I42 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy per snowball: it's a neologism and/or made up. Can anyone find any good reason for it to be in? TrulyBlue (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - A quick Gsearch will make it clear this is not something made up in one day. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at google hits for similar terms I find reworkability 4,160 ghits; stickability 27,000 ghits; greenability(!) 6,260 ghits; pushability 14,400 ghits, and reworkableness a grand total of 4 hits other than this article. OK, several people have made up the same word, but it's not in [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reworkability the major dictionaries]. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete notwithstanding nom's suggestion to transwiki. This is not even a real dicdef, as the definition contains the word within it. Oh yeah, and that whole made-up non-notable neologism business as well. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and soft redirect to Wiktionary. They will want the dicdef and they don't have it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and soft redirect to Wiktionary. The transwiki is appropriate because they don't have the word, and it appears to meet their criteria for inclusion. The soft redirect is appropriate to help searchers find the definition of the word. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki but don't soft redirect, no point. Computerjoe's talk 22:29, 25 March 2009 (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.