The result was keep. The discussion here really just serves to illustrate that this type of article does exist on the borderline between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the prevailing opinion seems to be that it's more useful to include an article that's just on the edge of Wikipedia's scope than it is to delete it - particularly when the article is as innocuous as this one. ~ mazca talk 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Despite numerous claims in the previous AfD that this article could be expanded or improved, no such expansion or improvement is visible. The article consists entirely of definition and usage. There is nothing to be said about it that can't just as easily be said in the Wiktionary article. Please don't just repeat: "Keep and expand" or "Keep; it could be improved", but rather please explain what, exactly, could be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. Powers T 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The discussion here really just serves to illustrate that this type of article does exist on the borderline between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the prevailing opinion seems to be that it's more useful to include an article that's just on the edge of Wikipedia's scope than it is to delete it - particularly when the article is as innocuous as this one. ~ mazca talk 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Despite numerous claims in the previous AfD that this article could be expanded or improved, no such expansion or improvement is visible. The article consists entirely of definition and usage. There is nothing to be said about it that can't just as easily be said in the Wiktionary article. Please don't just repeat: "Keep and expand" or "Keep; it could be improved", but rather please explain what, exactly, could be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. Powers T 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply