- 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Speedy Keep #1 ( WP:Non-admin closure). §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Black Buck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
while i'm sure this is actually a slang term, i'm not so sure that it warrants an encyclopedia article, or that the article is even precise.
also, completely unsourced for seven years. El Chivo 2 ( talk) 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator due to sourcing added. El Chivo 2 ( talk) 06:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (a) Sources are easily found. I've added a number to the article straight from gbooks. People have written entire books on this one stereotype alone. How could it not possibly "warrant an encyclopedia article"? There are many, many more sources available. (b) Who cares if "the article is even precise"? If that were a reason for deletion we'd be down to a few thousand articles in no time. Fix it if it's not "precise." (c) Who cares how long it's been unsourced for? Notability is established by the existence of sources rather than their presence in the article. A few moments of checking would have saved everyone the time this AfD is going to suck up. AfD is not cleanup. Next time, do a little work before you push that twinkle button.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette
El Chivo 2 (
talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE, not to mention WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOTCLEANUP.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 13:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette
El Chivo 2 (
talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 nomination withdrawn. Speedy Keep #1 ( WP:Non-admin closure). §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Black Buck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
while i'm sure this is actually a slang term, i'm not so sure that it warrants an encyclopedia article, or that the article is even precise.
also, completely unsourced for seven years. El Chivo 2 ( talk) 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator due to sourcing added. El Chivo 2 ( talk) 06:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (a) Sources are easily found. I've added a number to the article straight from gbooks. People have written entire books on this one stereotype alone. How could it not possibly "warrant an encyclopedia article"? There are many, many more sources available. (b) Who cares if "the article is even precise"? If that were a reason for deletion we'd be down to a few thousand articles in no time. Fix it if it's not "precise." (c) Who cares how long it's been unsourced for? Notability is established by the existence of sources rather than their presence in the article. A few moments of checking would have saved everyone the time this AfD is going to suck up. AfD is not cleanup. Next time, do a little work before you push that twinkle button.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette
El Chivo 2 (
talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE, not to mention WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOTCLEANUP.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 13:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette
El Chivo 2 (
talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.