The result was no consensus. There's no doubting that the article as it is is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Whether that means it should be deleted and whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, it seems nobody can agree on. Thus, no consensus, I'm afraid folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on this subject was previously deleted at this location, but this version looks quite different. However, this still appears to be a WP:OR essay that appears heavily based on one source (i.e., the Dixon book which was the main source used for the first incarnation of this article; I am unsure if some of the content is actually a copyvio). Much as the previously deleted version, it looks like an attempt to expand a dictionary definition with a lot of vague opinion/OR and with very little actual coherent encyclopedic content. Kinu t/ c 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There's no doubting that the article as it is is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Whether that means it should be deleted and whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, it seems nobody can agree on. Thus, no consensus, I'm afraid folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on this subject was previously deleted at this location, but this version looks quite different. However, this still appears to be a WP:OR essay that appears heavily based on one source (i.e., the Dixon book which was the main source used for the first incarnation of this article; I am unsure if some of the content is actually a copyvio). Much as the previously deleted version, it looks like an attempt to expand a dictionary definition with a lot of vague opinion/OR and with very little actual coherent encyclopedic content. Kinu t/ c 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply