Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solatium


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Solatium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a definition in Wiktionary, and the article adds nothing to the definition. Alice (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Item is a stub that will be expanded overtime. Article is already linked from many pages, proving that the article needs expanding.-- Esemono (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it's a dicdef, and not very many pages link to it. At most a merge to a law glossary. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - While currently a dictionary definition, which wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia, this strikes me as a potential article that can be fleshed out, due to the use of this term and concept in law and legislation. For example, Solatium in Australian law, in New Zealand law , in Bangalore , a reform bill in Scotland pertaining to solatium , US military solatium payments .  So I would fill out the article with information on solatium in terms of the law in different countries and how it is applied.  In addition to that, it needs to be disambiguated with Solatium, which is apparently a species of fungus , .  — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a perfectly reasonable stub to me. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has clear potential to become an article on a concept. —Angr 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless expanded A dictdef is a dictdef is a dictdef ... unless it gets some expansion immediately it's Wiktionary material which doesn't belong here. Potential of an article needs to be shown inside the article. Readers can read texts, not minds. - Mgm|(talk) 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to pain and suffering. This is a dicdef and there are other articles which cover compensation for damages.  Powers T 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Needs improvement, but discussion and article indicate there's enough notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per MacGyverMagic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Them  From  Space  01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - for those of you saying "delete per WP:DICDEF", I think you should be looking at the topic's potential to be an encyclopedic article, not it's current state. Wikipedia has no deadline. WP:STUB mentions that an encyclopedia article stub may be nothing more than a definition (to start with). The difference between a stub and a DICDEF is the stub has the potential and likelihood to be expanded, even though it currently may be nothing more than a definition. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:36, 14 April 2009 (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.