Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirimens Copulatio

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirimens Copulatio[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (dirimens copulatio) James084 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pretty sure an article on "a technique in rhetoric" could be expanded with more examples of historical usage, important authors, texts or political speeches which have used it and so on. I see no big reason not to transwiki this at the moment, as long as nobody objects to a future re-introduction of an expanded and referenced version to Wikipedia. u p p l a n d 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should give people a "page not found" message when they search for it? Kappa 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I would prefer somebody either to rewrite it as a better article, using a more complete description, more examples and proper references, or use it as a section in a larger article on rhetorical devices and make the title a redirect. A problem in this case is that it also appears to be a copyvio, see [1]. u p p l a n d 18:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I'm pretty sure this article's title is in latin and means something to do with copulation. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The latin word copulatio does not refer to sex. It may be translated as "union" or "combination". Fan1967 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary entry, not encyclopedic. Fan1967 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important technique in rhetoric. Kappa 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR dicdef. Stifle 17:56, 6 March 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.