Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceroma

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 keep. The 'per nom' delete comments are simply stating that because it's at Wiktionary, it needs to be deleted. Nowhere in the policies does it say that, and as such, they are given little weight. (X! · talk) · @275 · 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceroma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry has been copied to Wiktionary. It is very unlikely that it can be expanded into an appropriate encyclopedic article. It is possible the information could be added to another appropriate article if there is one. Sophitessa (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with nominator. As it has transwikied over already, delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteagree per nom, if in wictionary already, no need listed separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose is not part of the definition of the word, but is encyclopedic information. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The present article is indeed no more than a dictionary definition. However, the question should be whether it is a stub that ought one day to be expanded inot an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Every bit of information in the current article, including "information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose" is currently at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was in an earlier print encyclopedia, it should be in ours. If it was mentioned in classics sources, it can be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect via {{wi}}. Presence in print encyclopedia suggests appropriateness of inclusion, but current entry is little more than DICDEF. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger and DGG. This isn't merely a definition, has definite potential for expansion (although perhaps little interest amongst users to do so). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.