Deletion of Craic

Comment: Nom is using an unduly bureaucratic interpretation of . The article is weak but adequate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: The article contains content that would be inappropriate for wiktionary. As Angr mentions, this is yet another example of Wolfkeeper attempting to impose an extremely myopic interpretation of policy.  is quite clear that ''In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject.'' I don't think Wolfkeeper has shown that this is not the case for this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as this is obviously a disruptive nom; Wolfkeeper's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary&action=historysubmit&diff=356404259&oldid=356380196 own comments reveal that this is an attempt to affect ongoing policy discussions at .But while I'm here, this article is *not* a dicdef to begin with.  specifically indicates that words can be the subject of encyclopedia articles; even if ''not'', this particular article is supplemented with information on the concept, and (as I've pointed out) more could be added easily. So ''even if'' word articles were outlawed, the solution would be to rewrite the article to make it about the concept. The reason that hasn't been done is that after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Craic#Expand.2C_merge_or_redirect multiple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Craic#Dictionary.3F discussions, no one besides Wolfkeeper has had any problem with the current setup. Either way, the presence of historical and sociological information on the concept make this not a dictionary entry. And it's certainly *not* a neologism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC||WP:NOT)

Comment: as usual with Wolfkeeper's crusade to rid Wikipedia of articles about words. This is not a dicdef (despite his persistent attempts to be the sole arbiter of what  says and means), it's an encyclopedic article whose topic is a word. And yes, '''words are also valid topics for encyclopedia articles, just like everything else that exists'''. It's well sourced, it's notable, it's interesting and informative, it's everything an encyclopedia article needs to be. Transwikiing to Wiktionary is unacceptable because - guess what! - it's ''not'' a dictionary definition! Wiktionary already has a dicdef on wikt:craic|craic, and doesn't need or want an encyclopedia article taking up that space. Oh, and calling something a "neologism" doesn't make it one: the term "craic" has been around for centuries - nor is it true that we don't have articles on neologisms. We certainly do if they're notable and verifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)