Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilanguage encyclopedia

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. (X! · talk) · @093 · 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguage encyclopedia

This has sat for a week as an empty placeholder article. The current content simply restates the title (so it's a possible A3 speedy, although I've tried that already, and let it go rather than edit war with the author).

I don't see much prospect for a longer article. Either this is going to be an empty tautology like is is now, or it's going to largely duplicate encyclopedia. This could fly with some background or history specific to multilingual encylopedias, but so far there's no sign of either. Seems to have come out of user's edits to Wikipedia, they didn't like "multilingual encyclopedia" being two links instead of one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. It reads like an essay that never got beyond the outline stage. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A simple dicdef with no sources or content. Could be speedied by WP:CSD#A3. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outline for a content fork of Encyclopaedia. I agree an A3 speedy would be appropriate given the lack of content. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by the editor. I need more time, because I have too much obligations. Could you confer me an expiration of one month ? --Caceo (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're still working on it, why not do so in your userspace? You can move the article there, add all the content you want, and then include it in the main encyclopaedia. That, I believe, would keep everyone happy. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy if desired. I'm worried, though, that this looks like an outline for original research, rather than content gleaned from reliable sources on a notable topic. Cnilep (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.