Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong

Wrong[edit]

Was listed on VfD without comment. I say: Keep or Move to Wictionary -- Chris 73 Talk 10:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Keep is useful. It is more than a dicdef, (okay it's three) but they could be expanded e.g. on the law front needs minor cleanup to make it look purdy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Clearly keep. -- Netoholic @ 16:35, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
Keep. Can be expanded beyond dictdefs. — Gwalla | Talk 17:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete/Wiktionary - The question is not can it be expanded but has it been expanded beyond a dicdef to a point that should be included in an encyclopedia. The answer is no. If you wish to expand it to an acceptable article please make a note here so it can be reviewed. If not, why fool people into thinking there is an actual article on the topic? - Tεx τ urε 20:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It might be better cleaned up by merging the content into the relevant pages (tort, truth, etc) and making this into a disambiguation page. -Sean Curtin 01:17, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and Delete. I agree with Texture. This article is like a dictdef gone wrong. -- WOT 02:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how this can be elaborated beyond a dicdef without including material that would be better placed at, say, morality or truth. Transwiki and delete. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 03:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The legal concept of "a wrong" is sufficient justification to keep it (and hopefully, for a legal scholar to expand it). Several good articles link to this in ways that make sense. Rossami 03:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. OK as it stands & has potential for expansion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone cares to make it into a disambig page, and can link to a few valid conceptions of it, with articles, before VfD ends. If you do, msg me and I'll change my vote. --Improv 16:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, can certainly be expanded to more htan a dicdef! —siro χ o 06:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 16:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)