Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illth

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. The article is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illth[edit]

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

Ultimately, this is a dictionary definition. An amusing conceit but requires the confusion of a homphone. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a major philosophical concept. Production can result in an actual reduction in net material wealth. You might think it wholly foolish, but since it exists it needs to be recorded.--GwydionM (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep . Easy to verify used in numerous books, hence the article is expandable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are expandable, some are expandable dictionary definitions. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is more than a definition. (And damn you, Arial font!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tempted to say that it should be at a lowercase title. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (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.