Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overspending

: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), the article has obviously now been expanded beyond a dicdef. Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

=[[Overspending]]=

:{{la|Overspending}} ([{{fullurl:Overspending|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overspending}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Little more than a dictionary definition, and I can't see how it would be expanded into an actual encyclopedia article. Already has wiktionary:overspending entry. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete No hope of expansion beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - it may well be the case that 'overspending' could have an encyclopedia article written about it, but this text is not the article that deserves to exist with that name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The nominator is apparently unable to see the potential for expansion. He cannot then have either read the article, which contains substantial sources on the topic, nor searched for sources, which are abundant. For example, on Google Scholar alone, there are [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Overspending thousands of sources] such as [http://hec.osu.edu/people/shanna/bae.pdf Patterns of Overspending in US Households]. The reference to WP:DICDEF is inappropriate since the article does not focus upon the word - its etymology, pronunciation, etc - but upon the topic. It might be a case of Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent. but I fancy that the appearance of this nomination is related to another AFD which we are contesting and so this is a case of WP:STALK/WP:POINT. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't doubt that 'overspending' is worth an article, but the present article consists of three sentences. It would be better to have a redirect than what we have now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::* Please see our editing policy which explains the method of a Wiki - that we should nuture such seedling stubs rather than stamping upon them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

: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.