Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermittency

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 has been edited to remove the dictionary definition part of the article, removing the rationale stated for deletion. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intermittency

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

This appears to be a dictionary entry for the word 'intermittency'. See WP:NOT. Avruch^Talk 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete wp is not a dictionary. Ra2007 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Or rather transwiki to Wiktionary, which is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you think this can fit in the wiktionary, go ahead. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This goes way beyond a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More like a dictionary entry, with multiple definitions. It tells you that intermittence, intermittency... Means stopping! And also can refer to a urinary issue, and in something called dynamical systems. Maybe it should say:

• Intermittence:

intermittency

Behavior of stopping and starting, see: Male urinary activity, behavior in dynamic systems.

And then it can be transwikied? Avruch^Talk 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You seem to be proposing removing the encyclopedic content in order to reduce the article to a dictionary definition, and then deleting it. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If an article contains a dictionary definition as well as encyclopedic information then the thing to do is to edit out the dictionary definition, which I have done, rather than nominate the whole article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems valid and useful and much more than a simple dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 18:36, 17 December 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.