Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 13 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (3x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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 keep. per WP:HEY. Courcelles 00:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kaicho

Kaicho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. — Timneu22 · talk 12:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Battleaxe9872 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Contravenes WP:NOT#DICT. --DAJF (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete this dictionary definition. Cliff smith 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No longer a dictionary definition. Cliff smith 04:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Misplaced Pages is not Google Translator either. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, but where's that policy? That would have helped on my recent foreign redirect issue that went nowhere. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • FWIW, CSD A5 comes close. Cliff smith 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Well right, that's close, but doesn't specifically mention "wikipedia is not a translation site". I have noticed that we have no such policy, especially in regards to WP:R3 AND WP:REDIRECT. There's no indication why foreign redirects should be kept (R3) or why they should even be created (WP:REDIRECT). Sigh. — Timneu22 · talk 17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE per the new JBsupreme clause. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – Thanks to Uncle G, there's now a well-sourced article. I'm very glad this was not speedily deleted. Paul Erik 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Nice catch.  Chzz  ►  17:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Another master class in article rescue by Uncle G - bravo. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and consider renaming as "Japanese Corporate Titles" or something similar. --j⚛e decker 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been waiting for the better part of a week for someone to suggest that. I created Japanese corporate title as a redirect here on 2010-08-02 at 19:28:41. ☺ (Yes, the horizontal rule above really is in the right place chronologically.) Now for the second part of the plan. Guess what? This is a double. Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2010 (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.