Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craic
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
— User:Cuchullain, 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTDIC||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)