Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupidity

Stupidity

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

Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it gives uses and varied sources, which distinguishes it from a WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOW. This article has existed since 2004. While it needs work and better references, it is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. SnottyWong
^speak 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it can't be deleted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Subject clearly notable, and the less-than-perfect state of the article is not a reason for deletion. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. Per the nom, this is a dictionary definition. The article simply applies the definition to several topics. The same could be done with any noun in the English language.173.8.11.157 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]