188:
P.S. The non-blank talk page consists of three comments spaced out over almost as many years mainly discussing if it really rates a real article, with one using the term to mean something clearly different from the defintion the main article took from a fictional movie. How that by itself is supposed
220:
The fact that it has been sitting there in its original form for three years show that the article was so unimportant that nobody saw it or cared about it. Arguments that "that's the way it's always been" hold no water. Try arguing for it based upon its actual content... which in this case is simply
243:
Requesting to improve this seems ok to me, but trying to just outright delete it is nonsense. It's a word not used *that* often and in lieu of an improved explanation of the context this word might be used instead of 'supernatural' etc., this definition serves its purpose. If you go deleting
198:
The fact that the page has beein sitting there in its original form for about three years would seem to argue the other way: this page has been around unchallenged for a long time. A short article directing people to the sorts of things that have been called "preternatural" would appear to be
178:
I don't understand how it rates a disambiguation page... you aren't disambiguating a term, you are saying it's supernatural or ghosts or etc. which are all just supernatural. At best this is a redirect to supernatural with a mention on that page about the alleged difference between the two.
255:
Knowledge deletes dicdefs all the time. That's not "nonsense" that's policy. If anyone wants a definition or a link to a definition in the article they can go to
Wiktionary, which is what it is for, and which already defines the word.
142:, &c. It's a rare word that people tend to cross-reference if they use it in an article: they think it might need explaining. More than 15 pages link here, including one redirect (
239:
perhaps my edit will improve the much-needed disambig process. merge? redirect? i don't know: apologies for unfamiliarity with wikipedia protocols. jaqi, 19 nov 2005
115:
it. I found it on a google search and it was very helpful in defining the term and showing it's difference from the term supernatural. (Above vote is by
67:
85:
dicdef with no hope of expansion, bit of a neologism on the precise meaning (let's quote a work of fiction), could redirect to
17:
179:
Disambiguation pages are for topics with more than one meaning, not one vague meaning better covered by preexisting articles.
275:
36:
274:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
260:
225:
215:
193:
183:
173:
164:
106:
93:
73:
247:
116:
204:
49:
244:
entire pages just because you didn't like how complete it was, how complete is that (much less).
149:
135:
148:); outright deletion is going to redlink all of them and invite its recreation. It even has a
103:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
144:
257:
222:
190:
180:
90:
79:
200:
127:
86:
211:
covers both, it is a candidate for a disambiguation page in your sense as well.
212:
170:
161:
131:
139:
221:
dicdef with neologistic alternate meaning different from standard usage.
160:
to
Wikiquote if it's thought inappropriate for a disambiguation page.
268:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
207:
seem to distinguish themselves one from another; if
189:to be a justification for keeping it is beyond me.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
169:I went ahead and made it a disambiguation page.
278:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
156:to Wiktionary; the quotation may merit
7:
89:or any number of real articles here
24:
199:appropriate. FWIW, the articles
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
261:17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
226:18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
216:14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
194:23:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
184:23:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
174:21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
165:20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
107:18:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
94:14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
74:22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
295:
246:(unsigned comment by anon
271:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:. Default to keep. →
248:User:65.219.108.116
150:non-blank talk page
117:User:70.22.237.252
100:Merge or redirect
286:
273:
71:
64:
59:
56:
34:
294:
293:
289:
288:
287:
285:
284:
283:
282:
276:deletion review
269:
213:Smerdis of Tlön
171:Smerdis of Tlön
162:Smerdis of Tlön
83:
70:
65:
62:
57:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
292:
290:
281:
280:
264:
263:
242:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
186:
145:praeternatural
120:
109:
82:
77:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
291:
279:
277:
272:
266:
265:
262:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
249:
240:
227:
224:
219:
218:
217:
214:
210:
209:preternatural
206:
202:
197:
196:
195:
192:
187:
185:
182:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
110:
108:
105:
101:
98:
97:
96:
95:
92:
88:
81:
80:Preternatural
78:
76:
75:
69:
60:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
270:
267:
245:
241:
238:
208:
201:supernatural
157:
153:
143:
128:supernatural
123:
113:don't delete
112:
99:
87:Supernatural
84:
52:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
111:I hope you
205:paranormal
132:paranormal
158:transwiki
154:Transwiki
140:occultism
102:per nom.
258:DreamGuy
223:DreamGuy
191:DreamGuy
181:DreamGuy
124:disambig
91:DreamGuy
122:Make a
58:Unction
53:Ξxtreme
104:Jasmol
136:magic
126:with
16:<
203:and
68:blah
152:.
138:,
134:,
130:,
72:}
250:)
119:)
63:ł
61:{
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.