Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubiculum

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (

]

Cubiculum (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)

]

Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was no reason for the move except to frustrate the deletion discussion. Pure page move vandalism. I've moved it back & suppressed the redirect to restore the status quo. ]
I now think that it is no longer a dictionary page, and there is probably enough to sustain an article, given its current information. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Too late for me to withdraw the nomination per
WP:WDAFD, but it's now worth a Keep. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I'm a little disappointed by that, but not at all surprised. It's pretty much par for the course that participants in deletion discussions ignore the caveat "if they cannot be expanded beyond a definition" at ]
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.