Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Respecification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 8 January 2025 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Delete. Michig (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respecification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable term, dictionary definition. No reliable sources reportage in the article neither in search. Ammarpad (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to Redirect as suggested by Coin945 below. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to delete if this isn't the correct form of the term. Sorry for flip-flopping. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, slow down there mate. Just because it's not in Wiktionary does not mean it's 'patent nonsense'. A simple search [1] demonstrates that the term is applied to just about every modern CRPG. It may not be worthy of an article, but denying a link to an existing definition in an article seems remarkably purblind. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It'd be good to come to a consensus about straight deletion or redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to delete, per Hevesli. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 08:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...that's actually true - it's originally based on specialization, not specification. Duh. - Okay, let's kill this one and point the existing redirect respec to the glossary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - i.e. non-notable term. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (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.