Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeorhesis

Homeorhesis 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 17:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

I'm putting this up for discussion, without prejudice. vfd boilerplate was added to this article on May 8, 2004 by user:66.245.31.69 with the summary "Delete. This is a dic-def". It does not appear the article was ever added to the vfd discussion page, so therefore no debate has yet been held, and it still has the vfd boiler. -Satori 22:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary. Kbh3rd 23:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's false, so far as I can tell. First, I can't find any other dictionary to give the word.  Second, the formation suggests "of the same blood," not equilibrium of evolution.  Geogre 01:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just for the record, I searched with Bartleby's collection of encyclopedias and with the Merriam Webster 11th edition (which is a new edition from 2003, and full editions are actually rare in the dictionary world), as I like to be conservative when it comes to adding words. Geogre 14:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not in the online OED either, and the non-mirror google hits below actually hurt its credibility. Delete. CHL 14:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Updated. Definition previously was wrong. It's a newer concept than Homeostasis but the term has some currency and I think it can support a short article. If not, the updated content should be good for wiktionary.
 * Move to wiktionary if they want it. Otherwise delete.  Obscure term, but by eliminating Wikipedia mirrors I was able to find   (tinfoil hattery?)  and  (this last one is most informative).  This article seems to be a simplified version of what is no more than a dicdef to begin with in the source texts.  SWAdair | Talk  05:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article will grow with time. -- Crevaner 23:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, no legitimate reason for deletion! -- Old Right 15:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please see What Wikipedia is not #2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary and also What Wikipedia entries are not #2 Dictionary definitions. SWAdair | Talk  23:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keepin new version. I don't know the subject area, but this now reads like a useful article which I would be interested in following the links for. --Cje 17:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.