Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spastic
completely disagree with nom.  The article goes beyond a mere definition of the term to discuss from an academic perspective why the term has such different connotations in England and the US.  There is no policy that says "words" should be deleted, only that words should be deleted if all they are is a mere dictionay definition.  This is not.  Furthermore, the nominator suggest comparing the article with wiktionary:spastic because it ''shows that the scope is extremely similar.'' Er, no, the two are extremely different.  The wiktionary entry merely gives a definition, it does not discuss the term.  As for other words, the user is incorrect there as well.  Military brat is an article about a term and it used to be a featured article.  There are tons of words that have encyclopedic entries, this is no different---and no this is not , but rather the cognizant point that words can and do have articles here.   however, is not a valid reason to delete.  The history of term as well as it's reception elsewhere does not belong in a definition, but rather in an article on the term
— User:Balloonman, 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:IDONTLIKEIT (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)