Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scut

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 redirect to Tail#Types. Has already been merged. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but redirects do not need to be notable in themselves, and this one may be useful Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scut[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A contested WP:PROD. There's nothing to be said about this topic beyond the definitions of the word (the article names two of the three meanings), and perhaps some examples of the word being used in popular culture. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is not a collection of trivia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a valid term, but should be in wikidictionary. Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Repeat after me: "Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary." Carrite (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into tail which currently has little about such types of tail. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the tiny bit of information here to Tail#Types. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now please withdraw this nomination so that it may be speedily closed. Deletion is no longer an option as you have copied from this article and we require the edit history for licensing purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't copy anything: I wrote the two short sentences based on information at Wiktionary (the entry and its talk page). I didn't provide an inline citation because I'm not convinced that it's an acceptable source (even though my favorite web search engine indicates that it is accurate). Consequently, I don't believe that it's necessary to preserve the Wikipedia edit history for licensing purposes -- in fact, it would technically be inaccurate to say that the information came from this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively already has been merged ... so I'm not sure why the article shouldn't just be replaced with an appropriate redirect (Tail#Types presumably). There is no gain whatsoever from deleting the article history. TheGrappler (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a Dictionary, do not think it should be a redirect without a reiliable source] to support the section in Tail, happy to see one later if one is found. Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2010 (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.