Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invagination
Invagination was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep
Basic dicdef, move to Wiktionary. Quadell (talk) 18:09, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete:huh huh huh you said 'invaginate.' Actually, I think the definition is slightly off, but it's a dictdef. Probably no need to foist upon Wiktionary, but delete or transwiki. Geogre 21:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)- Darn you, Nunh-huh! You should let us know that you're making it a good article. :-) (It did sit from March to August with no change from an inaccurate dictdef.) Keep Nunh-huh's rewrite. Geogre 17:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Invagine all the people...sharing life in peace...(/Lennon)--delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:21, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
- Keep. Informative, potential for expansion. Article is good as it stands, but it should note the term is used in other contexts. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep stub. Specialty term that may take more time than most to grow into a full article. Rossami 16:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. -Sean Curtin 20:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in present form. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in present form. [[User:Radoneme|Radoneme
- Keep, but I won't presume to suggest where... Fire Star 16:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.