The result was Keep, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to
American-born
Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to
American-born
Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply