Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the red

In the red

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]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 15:00, 26 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. --D e ath phoenix 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. R adiant _>|< 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]