Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condolences

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 speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition Editor2020 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times, The New York Times, CNET. wumbolo ^^^ 15:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#DICDEF encourages the deletion of articles that "cannot be expanded beyond a definition", but that is manifestly not the case here. Indeed, there's even been scholarly examination of the construction of condolences as speech acts (see this, from the Journal of English Studies). I'm pretty sure there's some comparative cultural analysis on the topic out there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can easily expanded beyond just the definition. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Consensus seems to be that article has expansion potential. Editor2020 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2018 (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.