Talk:Cap rate

Article listed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Wikipedia is not a glossary. Delete because you cannot write an encyclopædic article on this. Falcon 01:23, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree. I'm not sure if we're working with a page limit here . . . This seems to be useful information. --Phil Larin 01:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Falcon, I think it is overdoing it to list so many articles for deletion when they are highly questionable cases such as this. Everyking 02:19, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that. Falcon 03:23, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, genuinely useful term (even if it's only a stub so far). -Sean 03:37, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I like it.--Samuel J. Howard 12:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's useful information. Perhaps someone will expand the article into an informative case study. Alcarillo 19:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:21, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)'
Keep. Don't overdo the dicdef objections. This article is certainly long and detailed enough to be a genuine encyclopedia article. One of the interesting characteristics of the Britannica 11th edition is the extraordinary variation in article length. On opening it at random, I see the following article which I am reproducing in full:

SOLAR, SOLLER (Lat. solarium,, Fr. galetas, Ital solaio) In architecture, a room in some high situation, a loft or garret, also an elevated chamber in a church from which to watch the lamps burning before the altars. The Latin solarium was used principally as a sundial, but also of a sunny part of ahouse.

That's the whole thing, and there are plenty of others like it. Dpbsmith 16:41, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a side note, jeeb, I'm actually participating in a VfD discussion. :)

End discussion