Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the red

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 of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Deathphoenix 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dictdef that wont become anything more than that. transwiki/delete BL kiss the lizard 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that it can't be expanded. But in any case, the information was split from our In the Red article by User:Paul A, who evidently feels it does deserve an article. Rather than delete the content, why not merge it back in if we can't have it standing on its own? I mean no offence, but I feel a little research would have helped with this AfD. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIWI, I looked for an article at In The Red, but got a redlink, so i didnt know there was another article. i expected one there about the Richard Griffiths and Warren Clarke TV miniseries. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, myself, have any firm convictions on the matter, except that the paragraph doesn't belong at In the Red. When I was deciding what to do with it, I found that User:RogerK had linked to in the red, so I followed his lead. (passes buck) --Paul A 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (back) and Transwiki. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 10:00Z
  • Please expend the 10 seconds or so to check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiktionary had in the red for over a year and a half before the creation of this. This is a dictionary article about an idiom, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not redirect? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me, Paul. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm somewhat uncertain about the value of my comments here. The phrase "in the red" is, obviously, a metaphor, and has been in use as long as I can remember. It may deserve to be referenced as such in an appropriate and more expansive article. RogerK 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikitionary. --Terence Ong 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that a Transwiki isn't necessary, as there is already a Wiktionary article here. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Wiktionary entry, then delete. The article in question is much clearer than the wiktionary entry. -Ikkyu2 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant with Wiktionary. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has more info than at wiktionary, including the history of the term -- Astrokey44|talk 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Stifle 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge The information here is worthwhile for readers who want to become familiar with the phrase and its history. The phrase is commonly used by writers, reporters, and television commentators, to name a few, and is used and discussed in classrooms. I see no redundancy here, nor do I think deletion is appropriate. --RogerK 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.