Deletion of Lady

Comment: The Lady_(disambiguation)|disambig page for "lady" shares where to find some of the many different uses for the word. Following, we have here a nicely encyclopdic explanation of the term "Lady" with Etymology and usage, British usage, and social usage.  With respects to the nominator, and agreeing that yes... while #DICT|Wikipredia is not a dictionary, a dictionary usage would look like http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lady THIS or http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lady THIS.  What we instead have here is much more than such a simple dictionary definition, and is presented in a manner so as to improve the project and our readers' understanding of the term in context to its use toward Nobility, its history, its entymology, and its usage.  It should be remembered, that "#DICT|In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject"... and that such articles #DICT|should provide other types of information about that topic as well."  In this case, those caveats are met.  What it needs is additonal sources, yes... but not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Fundamental misunderstanding of  by nominator.  That policy is to prevent articles that consist of little more than a dictionary definition, not to prevent lengthy articles about the history and cultural context of a honorific title. There are no problems with this article that can't be solved through normal editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY)

Comment: per . Horribly misguided nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: There is already an article woman which is about ladies and other women.  And yes I notified editors that might be interested, including every editor of the article who made more than one edit in 2010 (except the ones without a user name only a number, whatever that's called) and the editors on the talk page of ikipedia is not a dictionary because they will also be interested. (This was suggested by the WP:AFD page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: Purely a dictionary definition wiht no possibility of expansion. Appears to fail , and while Wikipedia aims to be more than a regular encyclopedia, I find it telling that other encyclopedias do not have an entry for "lady" itself, but it is covered heavily in dictionaries; transwiki to Wikitionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: the editor seems to be trying to make a . While I understand that articles on words should not normally exist, there are very obvious exceptions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I've edited this in the past.  The article is and is not "about the word 'lady'"; it's about a particularly complicated set of social class and gender role issues, that have been poured into the word "lady" because that's the way language-equipped humans organize our ideas.  You could read the article as an extended usage guide; but in its current form it contains information too complex for Wiktionary.  (|"Wikipedia is not a dictionary", among all our policies, has always struck me as particularly philosophically naive.  Every article about a subject humans have named and categorized, from ''honour'' to ''aliphatic'', is "about a word".  Words do not exist in nature; they are all linguistic tokens.  Every Wikipedia article is about a word; wikifying external referents is beyond the software's current capabilities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD)