Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterography

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 Keep. Article totally rewritten, big up for the G-man. (NAC) RMHED. 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heterography[edit]

Dicdef already included on wiktionary —Felix the Cassowary 17:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple dicdef and would be transwiki'd, but it already has, so nothing left to do but delete. The odds are against it becoming an article worthy of inclusion.
Strong keep. Currently redirects to Heterography and homography, which is an acceptable article and far more substantive than the one-line entry on wiktionary. Jd4v15 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks nothing like a dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article save by User:Uncle G. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as changed it's much more useful. Thanks to whoever that was. —Felix the Cassowary 07:48, 7 February 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.