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 soft redirect to Wikt:contrarian. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarian[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTDICT - Little to no substance in the article, single source focuses on word definition Skipple ☎ 15:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two-sentence stub that has little room for expansion. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:contrarian since it is a dictionary definition. Carpimaps (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: textbook dictionary definition, unclear how it could possibly be expanded beyond that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to to wikt:contrarian, per Carpimaps and WP:NOTDICT.Sal2100 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For what it is now, only a dictionary definition. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktonary per WP:DICTDEF NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:21, 20 February 2023 (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.