Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah

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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Both senses of rah are already captured in Wiktionary. If the etymology is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, it would also be appropriate for Wiktionary. See also WINAD. Ringbang (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no point in making a cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wiktionary Can you give any good reason NOT to link to Wiktionary? Having no page on the topic would just encourage recreation of the page. And people are likely to type this in as a search term--since there's an article about it on Wiktionary, it seems totally reasonable to link to it. Cazort (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wiktionary as per Cazort above. Nanowolf (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral-ish to weak keep. I suspect there is plenty more that could be written on this topic to make a reasonable quality article, certainly more than a dicdef (c.f. Sloane Ranger). However, reliable sources seem to be rather thin on the ground. DWaterson (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could be happy with this outcome too, although I'd prefer to move in the absence of encyclopedic content. Do you have any sources which you think could be used to add material that would make this into more of a cohesive article? Cazort (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (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.