The result was no consensus. I'm sorry this is the case, after all these debates it would really be better if there was a clear outcome. However, neither side has argued its case very convincingly. The keep voters argue that this is notable (read: covered in sources) but do not address the main delete/transwiki argument that only the definition can be supported. The delete/transwiki argument, though, focuses too much on the current state of the article, rather on the appropriateness of the subject. Note: I did take comments in the past debate into account, but my close mainly reflects comments made in this one. Mango juice talk 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated for deletion twice. The first nomination was based on WP:OR and WP:N, with the outcome being keep and clean-up. The second nomination was per WP:DICDEF and was initially closed as transwiki to Wiktionary. This closure was undone and then the discussion was closed by a third user as no consensus (default keep). The outcome of a deletion review of this discussion was that the article should be relisted for discussion on AfD. IronGargoyle ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment, can you clarify on what basis the article is being submitted for deletion (this time)? Yours, Czar Brodie ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I'm sorry this is the case, after all these debates it would really be better if there was a clear outcome. However, neither side has argued its case very convincingly. The keep voters argue that this is notable (read: covered in sources) but do not address the main delete/transwiki argument that only the definition can be supported. The delete/transwiki argument, though, focuses too much on the current state of the article, rather on the appropriateness of the subject. Note: I did take comments in the past debate into account, but my close mainly reflects comments made in this one. Mango juice talk 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated for deletion twice. The first nomination was based on WP:OR and WP:N, with the outcome being keep and clean-up. The second nomination was per WP:DICDEF and was initially closed as transwiki to Wiktionary. This closure was undone and then the discussion was closed by a third user as no consensus (default keep). The outcome of a deletion review of this discussion was that the article should be relisted for discussion on AfD. IronGargoyle ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment, can you clarify on what basis the article is being submitted for deletion (this time)? Yours, Czar Brodie ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply