This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Equanimity[edit]

Article has no content, simply a word and a link to wiktionary

• This nom was never completed by adding to a daily page; doing so now. Keep but replace content with ((wi)) as I'll do shortly. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable actioning with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep in its current form. --Apyule 05:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain This is becoming an issue bigger than just deleting this article, and I don't want to get involved in setting a precedent on it. --Apyule 04:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a link to Wiktionary when I checked. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Links to sister projects, like redirects, are cheap and should be used where approprate. Aquillion 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote: Umm, why is it necessary? Seriously, what are we preserving in the history? Is the word that unusual in meaning or common in occurrence that we should redirect to wiktionary's entry? It seems like a long, full discussion of essence on wiktionary would be a great wi link, but I'm just not sure why we preserve the less gnarled words. No vote and no desire to impugn anyone's good will. Geogre 12:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, there is no content there except for a link to Wiktionary. Since when did we keep articles with no content? There is an article in Wiktionary. We routinely delete articles which contain more information than this which are transwikied. Are we changing policy to allow the creation of an article for every word in Wiktionary which contains nothing but a link to Wiktionary? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't need articles consisting of nothing but links to Wiktionary. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Admitted neologism. Do not transwiki. Do not encourage. Paul 02:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops...there being no content, it can't be an admitted neologism...but vote is unchanged. Paul 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no content. --Metropolitan90 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with equanimity. Barno 19:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Zoe. --MCB 20:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need a Wiktionary mirror embedded here. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Expand, Redirect to Wiktionary, or Delete. In that order. Empty pages like this should not be on Wikipedia. Karmafist 21:28, 16 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.