Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round tuit

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 and redirect to wikt:round tuit. - Philippe 03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round tuit

Round tuit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Declined PROD. Dictionary definition. Has been transwikied and deleted once before. Roleplayer (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: DictDef, recreated material, neologism. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You see I originally nominated it for deletion under recreated material but because the text says "It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion" I've had csd g4 requests declined in the past because the prior speedy wasn't the result of a discussion. This place is confusing. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Soft redirect per Dhartung below. Not speedy, the deletion log shows this was previously deleted as an expired PROD, and the wording of WP:CSD#G4 excludes that - previous deletion must have been via a deletion discussion, i.e. AfD or similar. You're right, it's confusing - but delete soft redirect anyway, this is no more than a dicdef, it's already in Wiktionary, and it's a very old joke. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What a conundrum this one is. (1) This is a longstanding "meme" going back at least to the 1940s or before. (2) On the other hand, arguing keep on the basis of Wikipedia also having hundreds of articles on "lolcats" and "all your base are belong to us" and the like is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but (3) On yet the other hand, I don't think most of those rate articles either. (4) But yet again, deleting this while keeping all the Internet "meme" cruft would be a blatant example of WP:RECENT and systemic bias. I'm just going to sit this one out. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Get around to deleting it. It's not as if the article is ever going to expand past that one line definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and soft redirect to wikt:round tuit. This meets the criteria in WP:SRD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikt:round tuit per Dhartung. This should also discourage recreation of this wisp of an "article." B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2008 (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.