Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vlei

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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Vlei

Vlei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A subjective essay with no sources. Most of the article seems to be someone's way of venting their opinions on common misuse of the word. According to the article the word doesn't even seem to be English. Do we really need articles in English Wikipedia to define words in other languages? Very little information on what it actually is anyway, as the article seems to be focused on what it is not.Equazcion •✗/C • 17:18, 25 Jan 2009 (UTC)

• Delete should be on wikitonary, but not as it stands. --Empire3131 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki over to Wiktionary. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition--and completely devoid of encyclopedic qualities such as sources. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Beefart says: Maybe read the observations on my page and then go well on your merry way... I never had a problem with seeing pigs puzzled by pearls...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2009
  • It's more like offering mac & cheese to a porcupine. You might like it and think it's great, but it just isn't what that particular animal is looking for. You must understand that Wikipedia has specific standards and requirements for its articles. That doesn't mean your article is "bad" in a general sense -- just that it's not right for Wikipedia. If you're interested in constructive criticism, encyclopedia articles should predominately contain information about the word as a topic, rather than merely listing common misuses and etymology of the word. As others have stated, parts of your article would work better over at Wiktionary, whose goal is dictionary definitions rather than encyclopedia entries. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 26 Jan 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Just seems to be a definition of a word (and not an English one, at that). I'd suggest moving it to Wiktionary, but it's already there - although that article could certainly do with some expanding, which I'm sure Captainbeefart would be well-placed to provide. Anaxial (talk) 20:13, 26 January 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.