Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efference copy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete, so default to keep. Article has been expanded and sourced since nomination. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Efference copy

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary Fails WP:NOT#DICT. States that, "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well." In this case, the article provides no other information, just a definition. --On the other side Contribs|@ 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The very first Google hit for this phenomenon shows that it helps to answer one of those awkward questions that all children ask. Isn't this precisely what an encyclopedia is for? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • response - nope, it certainly isn't!
  • Strong delete - per nom. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Then what is an encyclopedia for? I have expanded the article, using one of the many sources available from a couple of quick searches, to add encyclopedic information which goes well beyond a dictionary definition. So how can you say "per nom" when the "nom" said that it should be deleted as a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Further comment. And, if you are in any doubt that this an encyclopedic subject capable of further expansion, Google finds 3190 scolarly articles and 629 books which you can consult to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'm usually a pretty tough cookie to break when it comes to keeping articles; however, I agree with Phil. This is an article that needs cleaning not deletion. As it stands, it is still within WP guidelines. --Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 20:15, 26 February 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.