Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lopado...pterygon


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lopado...pterygon

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - dictdef which has little or no potential of expanding beyond dictcef. Already in Wiktionary. Otto4711 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - that article and the word have been around longer than supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. It is notable, verifiable, and it hasnt done anything to hurt anyone, except perhaps their vocal cords. John Vandenberg 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hasn't done anything to hurt anyone"? Where is that in Wikipedia policy? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, regardless of how old the word is. Otto4711 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is able to pass WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies, and in my opinion it doesnt fall short of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as it contains more than a dictionary definition or usage guide. WP:RS/WP:OR may be a problem, but I doubt it.  IMO it is borderline, but it is much more pleasant to view than the wikt page because it isnt littered with greek.  i.e. the wikipedia article is a simplified version of the wiktionary article, and as such there would be occasions where it is preferable to link to the wiki article.  If the consensus is that it fails the inclusion policy, I think it should become a hard or soft redirect to wiktionary, if that is possible. John Vandenberg 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - can easily be expanded with information on how it is significant in the play, makiing it more than a dictdef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep, expand if possible - this could make for a very interesting article. Robin Chen 03:58, 23 January 2007 (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.