Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaccid

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. Sandstein (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flaccid

Flaccid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, previous prod template was removed without any given reason. The article was transwikied to wikitionary after my prod concerns. ImperviusXR (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, although Wikipedia is not a doctor, it's a medical term and the article contains more than a definition so I don't think WP:NOT#DICT / WP:WINAD applies. --Pixelface (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment the main part of the article that is not just a definition is simply telling the reader what body parts "flaccid" can be applied to, and is mostly unsourced. If kept, i think this article would need to be rewritten, and perhaps expanded in order to provide sufficient depth and to avoid phraseology such as "Is it firm, flaccid... or contracted?" which, as a question, does not appear to be relevant to the article. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete At the moment it is essentially a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedic entry. Johnthepcson 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a wikitionary entry. No content beyond definition. CredoFromStart ^talk 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is merely a definition, and it could easily be merged with another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishistheice (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the others. No more desirable as an article than "flabby" would be. Firegnome (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. verfiable information consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on words of which there are numerous published volumes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 13 April 2008 (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.