Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegrotat


 * 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   keep. Boldly closing as it appears the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Aegrotat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is, and always has been, a dictionary definition, same content is at wiktionary Moogsi (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * &hellip; which is a mistake because this is actually a concept in education, aegrotat degrees and aegrotat terms, not a language-related thing at all. Don't be confused by the fact that it has a name in Latin.  So have Ursa Major and Felis cattus. Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion is clearly not the answer. If a reader were to put "aegrotat" into the search box and hit "Go", xe should actually hit an article of some sort, considering that aegrotats do exist and are real things of centuries long standing.  (A quick Google Books search turns up one book with an appendix listing aegrotats at the University of Cambridge back to the 18th century, and another discussing "payments aegrotanti" in 1572 and 1573 at Pembroke College.)  Xe should either hit this, or British undergraduate degree classification, which would need improvement if this were to be redirected.  Neither option involves the use of the administrator deletion tool in any way.  Ordinary editing with the edit tool gets us to both.  Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article that could almost certainly be expanded if anyone wanted to do the research. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clogging up AfD with this nonsense was clearly the wrong thing to do. On reflection, there's plenty of room for informative content on this subject. Sorry, and thank you for your patience :) -- Moogsi (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * TRanswiki -- it is merely a dictionary definition - unless some one will convert it into a full article, but I dount that is feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly merge to Medical certificate, except that that page is in worse shape than this one. Both need significant clean up, but I don't think outright deletion is warranted at this time. Cnilep (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In light of Moogsi's comment of 16 November and the lack of arguments supporting deletion, closing as "nomination withdrawn" may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aegrotats exist and have existed for a long time, and people will be looking in here, directly or via Google search for more information about aegrotats. I am tempted to say: "Something is encyclopaedic if people are likely to want to look in an encyclopaedia for information about it.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's painful reading this discussion which is already longer than both articles aegrotat and medical certificate. And notice that sick note is a red link.  Per WP:NOTFORUM, we're here to build the encyclopedia, not to engage in idle discussion.  And note that WP:DICDEF advises us to write about related subjects under a common heading rather than separately.  The topic(s) ought therefore to be brought together but deletion is of no help in this.  If someone will please close this talking shop, I will do what's appropriate.  Warden (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable (e.g. ). Also, nom has withdrawn. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.