Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleat
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion because it has been moved to wiktionary. It should not be deleted because cleats are real things and this article coudl be expanded. Kappa 03:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hard to see what useful things it could say. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Lacrimosus 03:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, since it's already been transwiki'd. From the looks of it, one sentance pretty much says all there is to be said on the topic. --InShaneee 04:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, already transwikied. In fact, it should be speedied.
- Weird nomination, you don't normally nominate soething you want kept. This has been tranwikied, there is not that much else to say about cleats, delete--nixie 04:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Should I just take the speedy tag off then? Kappa 04:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No. Listing it here was the right thing to do. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I thought that things were speedied after transwiki?--nixie 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The transwikification process makes no distinction between speedy deletion and normal deletion. (There isn't such a distinction in other WikiMedia projects.) This is the source of the problem. The processes form a loop. The Wikipedia deletion process places transwikification as one possible end result of the normal deletion process. The transwikification process places a deletion request, per the source project's deletion mechanism, as the end result of transwikification. There are several ways to fix this, including making the end of the transwikification process be speedy deletion instead of normal deletion. However, thanks to the recent spate of exactly that being done, we've seen the problems that that incurs, with large numbers of articles having to be unspeedied. (It's also an abuse of the speedy deletion process. Being a dictionary definiton is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Abusing speedy deletion is not something to be encouraged.) Putting the (unencyclopaedic) articles through the normal deletion process a second time, but explicitly excluding "Transwiki" as a choice, is another option. But that's also problematic, as demonstrated by Lacrimosus above. ☺ Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- I thought that things were speedied after transwiki?--nixie 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No. Listing it here was the right thing to do. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Should I just take the speedy tag off then? Kappa 04:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There might be potential for expansion here. Weak keep. Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- Agreed - weak keep. History of cleats - different types of cleats - the many uses of cleats... Grutness|hello?
12:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Merge/Redirect to ship construction, or something similar. Can be broken out if/when expansion is achieved. Radiant_* 12:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This could also become a disambiguation page by adding "cleat: a spike or wedge on the bottom of athletic shoes designed to increase traction" to the nautical reference. --Allen3 14:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, interesting article. Grue 18:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I think this really has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic.Jackliddle 20:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Either Delete or Merge/Redirect to ship construction, or something similar. I'm discouraged that we're evolving to the point where the only thing required for inclusion in the 'pedia is for an item to be a noun. Kevin Rector 22:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Some verbs and adjectives, and even particles are here, too. As long as you write more about the word than its definition. The description of the usage of a real thing in the real word (rather than in the language) is the distinction of 'onary and 'pedia. Mikkalai 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, any decent dictionary gives examples of usage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Some verbs and adjectives, and even particles are here, too. As long as you write more about the word than its definition. The description of the usage of a real thing in the real word (rather than in the language) is the distinction of 'onary and 'pedia. Mikkalai 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Mikkalai 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Long-standing wikipedians will know that as soon as you say "nothing more can be said," someone promptly does. This article has not, for insytance, explored the 1977 CFL "Staple Gun Bowl" between Edmonton and Montreal. The term 'cleat' took on a whole new meaning after that date. Denni☯ 01:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
- Keep, potential for expansion, especially with the related meaning cleats (athletic shoes). I've added the shoe material I know until it's necessary to break it out to its own page. Meelar (talk) 01:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a dictionary item. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- delete. it's been transwikid. and the fact that multiple kinds of "cleats" exist is not grounds to "expand it into a wikipedia article", it's grounds to add additional definitions to the wiktionary page. i mean, duh. really. Avriette 23:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep "move to wiktionary" means critic lacks the imagination to see the potential for this article. Cleat is an old form of techology, same as ratchets and eye hooks. It's historical evolution and modern application deserves encylopedic exploration. People here need to be more sparing with the delete tag. Sniffandgrowl 00:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.