Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple bluff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quadruple bluff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Standard Triple-N: Non-notable neologism. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone of the aforementioned. Vianello (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of notability, lack of common use, and non-encyclopedic content. Try http://www.wiktionary.org/, although I doubt it merits inclusion there, as it seems to be a non-notable neologism. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for things made up one day, which AFAICT is what this is. 2DC 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP As the origonal auther of this article I have updated it sighting 4 aditional sources; A TV review, A book, an article from one of the UK's most respected newspapers "The Guardian", and a transcript of a cermon given by The Bishop of Sherborne in Salsbury Cathederal. as these all cover a large period of time and geographical location, I feel it would be inproper to delete this article. Stew9021 (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These would indeed seem to address the allegations of it being a non-notable neologism and/or made-up. Unfortunately, the dictionary definition issue still looms. - Vianello (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Whilst I would agree that this appears to be a mere dictionary definition, my inclusion of an example of usage and links to other definitions, e.g. poker, for background on the origin of bluffing make it a valid entry.Stew9021 (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't actually added anything that isn't part of a dictionary article. The quotations showing this phrase in use are classic dictionary article material, for example. So are the language, part of speech, and inflection lines. And you haven't cited a single source that supports the descriptions of what quadruple bluffs are. So what we have is a dictionary article padded with original research, apparently. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- quadruple bluff is what your dictionary article looks like when properly formatted, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Whilst I would agree that this appears to be a mere dictionary definition, my inclusion of an example of usage and links to other definitions, e.g. poker, for background on the origin of bluffing make it a valid entry.Stew9021 (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These would indeed seem to address the allegations of it being a non-notable neologism and/or made-up. Unfortunately, the dictionary definition issue still looms. - Vianello (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NEO there need to be independent reliable sources that are about this term, not just that use the term. Otto4711 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 27 December 2008 (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.