Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-mancy

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

-mancy

DicDef, Transwikied already, and not really even a word. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dsmdgold 00:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- We have -stan, which I used myself last night for some information. I looked here at WP hoping to find my answer, and did. There's one example of an article of this nature being somewhat useful with some expansion. - Longhair | Talk 06:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Radiant_* 08:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 18:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of English suffixes. Angela. 15:46, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of English suffixes. Kelly Martin 15:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 16:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair, failing that merge with list of English suffixes. Kappa 22:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. This is Wiktionary material. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to English suffixes until someone writes an absolutely perfect article somewhere else and then fights tooth and nail to put it at -mancy. -SV|t 21:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quale 05:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Stancel 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.