Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invective

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invective[edit]

Dictionary definition, a better one already exists at [1] BadSeed 17:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wiktionary already has an entry. Mindmatrix 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. --Daedalus-Prime 20:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got to this entry from the page on Procopius, which mentions "the genre of invective". Does anyone know about such a genre? If there's such a thing, it would be suitable for a Wikipedia entry; if noone knows about it or intends to write the article, then I say Delete. 11:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- From a quick Google search, it does look like "Genre of invective" or "Invective (genre)" does have sufficient notability for an article, perhaps with a redirect from Invective. --Daedalus-Prime 16:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisting. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term "invective" is used for Roman polemical verse, but the preferred literary term for post-classical invective is libel; see this website: [2]. Currently, libel redirects to Slander and libel. I would vote to Redirect to Libel (poetry). Chick Bowen 23:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and created a Libel (poetry) page, since I thought there should be one anyway. Whether invective is redirected there is, of course, up to you. Chick Bowen 01:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this at invective. Kappa 00:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dicdef no matter how much trivia is added. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this at invective - it could be expanded to an article about more than just the linguistics of the word, so it's not a dicdef. ··gracefool |☺ 17:46, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.