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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praise[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~Weak keep - Article is terrible, but NOTDICTIONARY does not apply here for the same reason on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lie: the article is about the concept, not the word. I could almost get behind a WP:NUKEANDPAVE though. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Article is about the concept not just the word. Article is badly in need of development but no reason for deletion.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems frivolous in that the page in question does not resemble a dictionary entry and the nomination does not address the page and its content in any way; it just makes a vague wave to a policy. Andrew (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't much like articles based around common English words, but it's a very difficult case to argue that this one qualifies as a dicdef. Comparative religion and psychology alone could expand this article to Good or maybe even Featured. If you can't convince me that it's worth deleting, I doubt you'll have much luck with anyone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir. Mat ty.007 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article's quality is not so good but it seems encyclopedic to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly not a dictionary definition. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:02, 9 May 2014 (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.