Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anasteemaphilia/2004-12-20

Anasteemaphilia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

This article was nominated for deletion back in August, and the consensus seemed to be to weakly keep it (see it's talk page). This is 4 months later and not only is this still a straight dicdef, but it is also nearly an exact copy of the Wiktionary article. Time to get rid of this.--Lucky13pjn 03:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It's survived one VfD so earned it's place, now needs expansion, not deletion. Dan100 08:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, should someone find something encyclopaedic be said on the matter it can be recreated. --fvw *  08:15, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a dictionary definition, nothing more. Cdc 17:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no point in the senseless destruction of this factually valid stub. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds interesting, could be a good article but... if no ones expend it in 4 months what's the point ? Gtabary 17:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd love to see the statistics page that shows the likelihood of articles being expanded after 4 months of non-editing. It seems to me that immediatism is in dire need of some facts to back it up anyway. 82.92.119.11 22:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, let it learn to stand tall on its own. Wyss 00:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What this needed was a category. I've placed it in Category:Paraphilia, where it is just as fitting as any other member, and also properly labelled it a substub. It's now entirely likely to be taken up and expanded. Please keep. Samaritan 06:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has been given enough time to expand. It's just a copy of wiktionary article. And as said, it can always be recreated. utcursch 07:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - 81.70.91.207 09:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Wiktionary article. Alphax (talk) 04:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * The grace period is up. It's still a mere dicdef.  It's already in Wiktionary.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 04:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect --Melaen 15:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete If there is something to write about this then someone can create a new article then. Paul August &#9742; 03:14, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Rossami said.  SWAdair | Talk  08:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be expanded. --Sarcasticninja 06:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.