Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breviloquence

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breviloquence

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic potential here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a subject in Biblical Greek grammar that can be discussed at length, nominated for deletion by a serial deletion nominator who hasn't supplied a single good reason for deletion anywhere and who is taking the no-effort no-writing use-every-deletion-process-until-one-sticks approach to dealing with stubs. Don't help him to stomp on the shoots and saplings before they grow! Help to stop this wanton destruction of Wikipedia! 40% of the encyclopaedia is still stubs. People who go around nominating that two-fifths of the encyclopaedia for deletion, instead of writing it, are actively destroying Wikipedia, not making it better. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basic searches show that this is an important concept used by scholars in New Testament studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. If its a subject in Biblical Greek grammar and is used by scholars in New Testament studies, the article needs to be expanded to show that, and reliable sources added. In its current state, the article looks like it's about a neologism or nonce form. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a very "neo-" neologism if it was first used in 1656. And AfD is not cleanup. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails everything about notability. Maybe can be transwikied somewhere.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where on earth did that horrible {{DeleteVote}} template come from? This isn't supposed to be a vote, and it only really serves to make it more visible that you obviously haven't even read the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. okay. I guess I am not allowed to disagree with you (or agree and stick up for you which I have also done).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning your right to agree or disagree with me; it's just that I think that symbol is ugly and distracting, and the name of the template is not in accordance with the way AfD is supposed to work. My main point was that the nominator said that this has already been transwikied, which you seemed not to notice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The graphic delete/keep templates are in wide use on Wikipedias other than en. I don't think Sallicio made them up. --MCB (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought my comment about "basic searches" was pretty self-explanatory, but it seems not, so I'll spoon-feed you with these links which show that this is a technical concept used by scholars of Ancient and Koine Greek, particularly in New Testament studies. I don't have the necessary expertise to expand the article myself, but I am capable of recognising that this is a notable encyclopedic subject. Just because it takes a bit more expertise to expand than an article about some minor character who made a fleeting appearance in an episode of whatever trashy TV series the tabloids are talking about today it doesn't mean that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (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.