Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeronym

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Uncle G as ever writes very persuasive arguments and the article has been expanded considerably. THe two-thirds guideline is too low here. -Splash talk 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Numeronym
A pure dictdef. I doubt that a reasoanble article about such words will be created. Delete or transwiki to wictionary. DES (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whilst sources don't say much about numeronyms, they do say some. Keep. Uncle G 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely one for a dictionary, not an encylopedia?. Delete.  James 09:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (Actually 82.70.145.118 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Some editors contend that an encyclopaedia article that is merely short is a dictionary article. This is false.  For one thing, dictionary articles are long.  (See cogitare, line, key, and can, for examples.)  Short encyclopaedia articles are stubs, not dictionary articles. The difference between an encyclopaedia article and a dictionary article is content, not length.  A dictionary article numeronym tells the reader about the word "numeronym" (its etymology, meaning, pronunciation, translations, synonyms, antonyms, related words, derived words, and so forth).  An encyclopaedia article, such as this one, tells us about the concept of numeronyms (what numeronyms are, the history of numeronyms, the different types of numeronyms that exist, and so forth).  A dictionary article is on the "mention" side of the use-mention distinction, and an encyclopaedia article is on the "use" side. As the Guide to writing better articles says, if you encounter an encyclopaedia article that is erroneously on the "mention" side of the distinction, one thing that you can do to improve it is to edit it so that it is on the "use" side. That wasn't the case here, though.  This article was already on the "use" side, and labelled as a stub.  The correct question is whether or not it will be a perpetual stub, with no hope for expansion.  There seems to be enough source material for this not to be the case.  And given that the article has already been expanded from its form at nomination, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. Uncle G 11:58, 16 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.