Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Repeating

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. No rough consensus among participants to delete. Additionally, I do recommend forking the below discussion to an addition of a new QD criterion if the community would like the administrators to act on this type of request without discussion. Jon@talk:~$ 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating

Repeating (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Dictionary definition that already exists on Simple English Wiktionary. The only link here is a user page. Auntof6 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete. It's a wikt def; should have been a rapid delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that one of the QD criteria? If so, I missed it. Let me know, because I have a few more of these that I want to do when I see how this one goes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Move to Wiktionary is full of these. Above article should be tagged with {{dicdef}} and moved to Wiktionary. Beefball ^Talk 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is so tagged, and it's already in Wiktionary. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it can be QD'ed provided all information is already in Wiktionary. Beefball ^Talk 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. Which QD criterion is that? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: There is no criteria allowing for quick deletion of dictionary definitions at this time. Jon@talk:~$ 05:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This can be argued against by claiming G6 (maintenance) with the justification that any article tagged as a difdef which has already been moved to Simple:wikt is completing the original RfD on all dicdef articles and as it was already covered by an RfD, and all steps of that RfD have been taken except the actual deletion, then deleting it is just a point of finishing up the RfD for that article - in essence a point of doing the maintenance. Up until an edit on the Deleltion policy on Nov 30, 2008, this was all covered by A3 but that rule got reveresed, literally.. was once we transwiki out, we can delete, not is if transwiki'd in, we can delete. Problem is, looking at the history of the deletion policy talk page and simple talk at that time as well as all the edits by the person who made the change, I cant see where it was discussed to make this change so A3 looks like it was changed by being bold and just got accepted as such. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is a bad definition for the word. For example, in the US "repeating" can mean held back one grade level for academic reasons or can have meanings in the visual arts. Verbal repeating is just one example of a larger concept. The word does not have a negative connotation by itself. Racepacket (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.