Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macroscopic

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macroscopic[edit]

This article is just a dictionary definition, and there's no real prospect of it becoming anything else. I propose deleting from wikipedia, and adding the content to the Wiktionary definition at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macroscopic Djr32 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the article Microscopic? I don't see why there would need to be an article about one antonym but not the other.Synchronism (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think there's any need to add any of the content into the currently existing wiktionary article. Microscopic should be deleted as well. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good subject for a longer article. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can this be expanded? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would personally merge microscopic to microscope. Perhaps defining this word would be better be covered there too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "stub" is not a criterion for deletion. Seems like it'd be a challenging topic to write for, but one can imagine a great article. Wily D 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the argument for deletion is not "stub"; the argument for deletion is "dictionary definition", as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (To quote directly from that guideline, 'For example: "supermassive" is an adjective, and doesn't by itself denote an actual subject. Supermassive black hole is an actual subject.') The reason the article is short is because it's a dictionary definition. (It would obviously be silly to expand it with a list of things that are macroscopic in size, even though this could be a very long list!) Djr32 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into human scale, or move to Macroscopic scale and expand in a way similar to Mesoscopic scale. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily could be developed into an article covering the many uses across the disciplines of "macroscopic." J L G 4 1 0 4 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg4104 (talk • contribs) oops-- fixed my sig now J L G 4 1 0 4 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already more than a dictionary definition, and can be expanded further. Support renaming to Macroscopic scale as suggested by Army1987. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2009 (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.