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 keep. Courcelles 00:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (fire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. Useless WP:DICDEF of wikt:spark. GDallimore (Talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The policy WP:DICDEF explains that size is not a relevant factor in determining whether material is a dictionary definition. The relevant factors are a focus upon a particular word qua word: its etymology, spelling, usage &c. We do not have this here; instead, what we have is a stub — a short article which is awaiting expansion and improvement. The nomination provides no evidence that such expansion is not possible and I have just provided some counter-examples by expanding the stub a little. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These examples are not about sparks. The first example is about a scientist and his experiments and belongs in that article. The second is about pyrotechnics and belongs in that article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a bit more to the article. I think the subject is notable, covered in reliable sources, and has enough possibility for expansion that it does not fall under a mere DICDEF ruling,. There is more than just a sentence long dictionary definition that can be said about sparks. Silverseren^C 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, even though the subject matter is small and transient. The article goes further than a dictionary definition and has scope for further expansion. Referencing is sufficient to ensure the article's survival but almost all referencing can be improved. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its more than just a dictionary definition. It was fine before, and now its even better. [1] Good job rescuing that article. Dream Focus 01:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a stub not a definition. The article is very short but not short enough to be a dictionary definition. What this article needs is some expansion. 24.130.201.48 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With six inline citations, it is properly referenced. The section about steam locomotive sparks is quite relevant, too. More can be added. For instance, what about the chains used on petroleum product tanker trucks to reduce static electricity and the possibility of sparks igniting the cargo?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The role of the concept in the history of thought is encyclopedical.Racconish ^Tk 10:11, 24 December 2010 (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.