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 problem with this article is that it leaves you asking "So?". Wikipedia != dictionary. Transwikied dictdef, contested prod. MER-C 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this be speedied as it has been transwikied? JodyB talk 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The transwikification system is not a back door route to deletion. Transwikified articles should be considered on their merits, and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, just as any other articles. The questions that editors should be asking themselves here are the usual ones, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Is this article verifiable? Do sources exist anywhere from which it will be possible to expand it? Is it possible for it not to be a perpetual 1-sentence stub? Uncle G 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a legitimate phobia, and Uncle G has expanded it beyond the 1-line definition to a decent stub article. HeirloomGardener 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, this is no longer a mere dicdef and shows clear potential for expansion. Kudos to Uncle G. — brighterorange (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the expanded version. Was a valid deletion candidate when nominated. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2007 (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.