Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambivalence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mind matrix 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalence[edit]

I came across this while stubsorting. It's already in wiktionary and I feel this can't get past a dicdef status. Unless anyone can think of a useful redirect target, I suggest it to be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what happens to it. Aha. Ahahaha. Just my little joke. Delete. Proto t c 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is much more about it's use as a psychoanalytic term here than in wiktionary, and it's more appropriate to keep it here, as it goes beyond a simple dicdef. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squiddy. Stifle 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has more scope than a mere dictdef. -- (aeropagitica) 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still a dictdef to me. PJM 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a psychoanalysis term. It's quite well written too. Dan 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article, goes well beyond a dicdef. --kingboyk 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is more than a dicdef, and has potentials to further mature. --Bhadani 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.