Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plethora


 * 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 delete, as effectively already transwikied-Wiktionary already has this definition for the term. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Plethora
Definition of a non-notable archaic medical term. The article has already been speedy deleted three times in the last month. Alabamaboy 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and salt, at least for a while, since the user insists on being a pain about it. In the lastest go 'round, the user recreated the page all of seven minutes after it was deleted. Mwelch 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep but stamp on silliness Transwiki. As it stands, it's not much more than dictionary definition, but it could be expanded a little: the history of the term (see Cacochymy), role as a clinical sign (see Pemberton's sign), transfusion plethora, etc. One editor pissing about is reason to invoke misconduct procedures, not remove a topic. Tearlach 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, but on account that we're not a dictionary. Editorial silliness can be dealt with through administrative action. --Dennisthe2 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to supplement - the archaic medical term is, suffice it to say, archaic, but that it's a dicdef alone is a killer for this one. Even current usage ("a plethora" being "a whole lot" something) I can't really see as being much more than a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Do you know what a plethora is?" Apparently I don't, jefe, I was only aware of the modern usage.  Nevertheless, it's still just a dicdef and at most transwiki this entry.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also cool with going the transwiki route.--Alabamaboy 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it's a stub for a currently used medical term, which also has another archaic meaning (sure the reference was 'hidden' but u shld have checked, please pay more attention to content rather than editors) &rArr; bsnowball  10:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am paying attention to content, and really don't care who created it. I prefer to hold no ventettas against any editors. =) Content currently says "dictionary definition", thus my !vote - which stands as is, unless we can actually make it into something more than a dictionary definition.  --Dennisthe2 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, unless someone can make this a proper encyclopedic article.--JyriL talk 17:31, 5 April 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.