Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock-eyed

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 delete. Wiktionary has an entry on "cockeyed" now. Mangojuice^talk 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cock-eyed

A page of nonsense BalfourCentre 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article on term cock-eyed is appropriate, even if current article is unsourced and of poor quality. Rohirok
• Transwiki to wiktionary with a serious rewrite. The text smacks of WP:NONSENSE, but even if it was a verifiable story, I don't know that it would justify its own article. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (maybe transwiki). Would wiktionary want it? Unverifiable and probably made up, anyways. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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.