Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantrum

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The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrum

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

Unsourced dicdef, WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply use Google Scholar to verify that this is a notable topic with an abundance of reliable sources available. Improve this stub through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about this notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term shouldn't be limited in such a way (dicdef definition), there's a lot of room for creating and interesting article, see i. e. Readings in Educational Psychology, pp. 18-21. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's currently little more than a definition doesn't mean it's got no potential to be an encyclopedia article. In this case, there is plenty of room for expansion.--Korruski^Talk 09:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very worthwhile article but it is very underdeveloped which is no reason to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souces I'm adding 2 sources I found.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I've added them.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admin looks like a speedy keep (WP:SNOW) to me as no support for OP and additionally the OPs case is now completely undermined as article is now full of sources.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2011 (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.