Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameleurion

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. Of someone ever wants to transwiki then I will undelete for them to do it but transaction has become deprecated anyway as it's often is dumping our rubbish on other wikis who generally don't respond well to that... Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameleurion

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

WP:DICDEF of a term, flagged for transfer to Wiktionary since 2014 without the transwiki actually occurring. Four years isn't okay: we need to either force it or dump it now. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is there a policy or guideline dealing with the time period for transwiki requests? My initial thought would be that, as long as the information is sourced and not harmful in some way such as a copyright violation, this situation would be analogous to the reasoning of the essay WP:NODEADLINE and the policy WP:PRESERVE. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no formal deadline spelled out in policy, but that doesn't mean we have infinite patience for things that aren't happening — it's a pretty well established consensus that even if there isn't a formal deadline per se, things still have to happen within a reasonable amount of time. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DICTDEF fail as well as a paucity of sources using this term (at least in this spelling) which make this fail GNG as well.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2018 (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.