Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booger (word)

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 transwikied, deleted, and redirected.

Booger (word)

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

Previous VfDs:

15 August 2005

This article is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Anything encyclopedic can be moved to Mucus; the rest should go to Wiktionary. Powers ^T 00:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Yep, Dicdef; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think it should be merged, however, because of the lack of sources. If some are found, go ahead and merge it! *Cremepuff222* 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary
  Talk 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, if necessary. The etymology is fascinating, but it really belongs on Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pick and flick it to Wiktionary per the tiger. Really not Wikipedia material -- Wiktionary is a better home for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wiktionary already has an entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/booger , so there is no need to move this article to Wiktionary. --Eastmain 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of information here that isn't in the Wiktionary entry; if sourced, it could be valuable. Powers ^T 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sourced, the article may be kept in wikipedia. `'юзырь:mikka 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really; it'd still be nothing more than a dictionary definition (plus etymology, which is dictionary material as well). The very title of the article ("(word)") is a big red flag. Powers <sup>T</sup> 14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary appropriate info not already detailed over there. Redirect to
  talk 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete unreferenced essay. `'юзырь:mikka 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictionary definition. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki — What an AfD for breakfast! Let's send it to wiktionary -- if they want it. JodyB _talk 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing encyclopedic about it. ~Crowstar~ 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and Redirect to
  properly sourced, add in the content as well. xC | ☎ 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - dicdef and already in wikt - Alison ☺ 02:11, 21 June 2007 (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.