Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antilabe

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 was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antilabe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KDS444, for provoking me to improve the article! "Antilabe" is a rather obscure term and if Wikipedia would survive without an entry on it, I would not be utterly surprised. On the other hand the device [antilabe] is discussed in many scholarly publications. I have enlarged the entry and included the references (not finished yet). Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - good show! KDS4444^Talk 02:26, 18 December 2014 (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.