Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autological words


 * 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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of autological words
Was tagged as, but not really a prod candidate. Instead I suggest normal AFD process. And vote keep. - Sikon 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list of an interesting set of words.  Logophile 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, the guy who tagged it prod couldn't even be bothered to vote in the AFD himself Night Gyr 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really fair. It was only deprodded a few hours ago. ×Meegs 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No rationale for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, agreed no reason for deletion. Kestenbaum 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article is fine. -- Mithent 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this content is much more lexical than encyclopedic.  Wiktionary:Appendices are ideal for this kind of list.  Rossami (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sikon, you didn't need to bring this here – that's best left to one of the article's detractors. ×Meegs 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought a formal AFD keep notice would repel those willing to prod this in the future. - Sikon 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It just seems to me that an afd is only fair when it begins with a someone laying-out the case for deletion.  In this case, though, the keep sentiment is so strong that I can't imagine it would have mattered. ×Meegs 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting list. I would definitely look for this here, not in Wiktionary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic only the strong anti-listers could get exercised at this one. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -ReiVaX 20:37, 4 March 2006 (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.