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The result was keep (nom withdrawn, no delete votes). Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Busybody[edit]

Busybody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

AfD'd before and result was delete, but article was recreated. Article is merely a dictionary definition, and an entry already exists for it on Wiktionary. NYSMy talk page 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Withdraw this, significant improvement made. NYSMy talk page 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is not a dictionary definition and, even if it were, this would not be a reason to delete because the essential point of WP:DICDEF is that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." Warden (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what you just said is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says it is okay to add dictionary definitions. The article states the definition of the slang term, and then has 4 sentences stating random usage of the term in plays and books, none of it is encyclopedic. NYSMy talk page 23:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. As a non-native English speaker, it's exactly the kind of information I'd like to find in an encyclopedia article about an English term. If the books are deemed reliable sources, the article passes WP:GNG. If the article contains references to uses in cultural works, it is not a dictionary definition. Diego (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article isn't just a definition. The changes Warden has done have added to it greatly since the time it was nominated for deletion. [1] Dream Focus 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Listed by User:Colonel Warden. Discussion notified by Richhoncho (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (albeit weak). WP:DICDEF says "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. " - So the test we must use here is: are there enough sources that discuss busybody as a concept or a kind of person (rather than merely as a word). There appear to be some sources in the article, and my gut feeling tells me that more are available. --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2013 (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.