Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workmanship
The nomination displays such poor workmanship that it should be speedily closed as frivolous.  It makes the vaguest of waves towards policy without providing any evidence or cogent argument.  The current draft doesn't actually look anything like a dictionary entry as there is no lexical content: no etymology, no grammar, no spelling, no quotations or examples of use.  We can therefore only suppose that the basis of the nomination is that the current draft is short.  But our  policy explicitly says that shortness is not a valid test for this: "''Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent. ... Note that dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DICDEF (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)