Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Description

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

This page was marked Move to Wiktionary. Evidently (according to the article's talk page) this had been completed. In fact, there is an entry on Wikitionary for description. This article is an elaborate dicdef and therefore, should be deleted in favor of the Wiktionary entry. James084 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is already more than a dictionary definition, and has further potential to expand to mention description techniques used in poetry, in police work, in audio description for the visually handicapped, and other fields. Kappa 02:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Kappa. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just a definition anymore, more of an indepth description of a description. Mike _{(T C)} 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a dicdef or a disambig page? Might be useful as a disambig page, but the rest sounds pretty definitional to me. Fagstein 05:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kappa. The article is not merely a dictionary definition; as well, it has room for expansion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is also used in witten composition to refer to a particular type of prose writing and a particular type of essay. It can and should be expanded. Logophile 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. More than just a dicdef Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a common word and should be expended. Elfguy 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mikkerpikker ... 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a basic process underlying a number of activities Fred Bauder 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please because of what kappa said Yuckfoo 19:39, 9 February 2006 (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.