Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC islands (Lesser Antilles)


 * 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   Keep several valid sources WP:NACD  C T J F 8 3  chat 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ABC islands (Lesser Antilles)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The use of this term to refer to these specific three items appears to be original research, backed up only by self-published sources. The PROD-tag was removed by someone who claims to have seen this term used in "lots of sources", but unless they are cited rather than vaguely mentioned in an edit-summary, it is clearly non-notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Here's twelve sources that use the term, from 1959 to 2007, with all different authors and in different fields:         From 1971 1959   and .  No, not all these should be added to the article, but the term is in broad common parlance.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are allowed by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).
 * No they are not—please read WP:SPS again. Why would you say something like that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I looked at it: it says "self-published sources are largely not acceptable".
 * Again: Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are not forbidden by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).
 * Are you just trolling now? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "largely unacceptable" is weaker than "forbidden". (Bgeelhoed (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).


 * Keep: I can't for the life of me see why this article should be deleted. It might only be stub-class, but then most of the 20 interwikis are also stubs in their languages too. A few tweaks and expansion, and this could be a nice, tidy addition! Jared Preston (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted because it still has no references to state that the term is anything more than one travel-website's own personal invention. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Woolsack  ─╢ 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone who's interested, I found one citation in Lonely Planet's guide to the Caribbean islands. Jared Preston (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources given by  Bradjamesbrown  are sufficient to show common use. Additionally, WorldCat shows  7 items with the phrase  in the very title:   3 maps,  2 books, and 3 theses. and a number of others with the phrase in the publisher's summary, e.g.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/437248532&referer=brief_results], where it clearly is used as the common term. There is no rule against stubs.    DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I don't remember suggesting that there was a rule against stubs, and I look forward to having my recollection refreshed by the diffs that you will doubtless provide to back up your comment. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not opposing you when I said that, merely seconding Jared.   DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Bradjamesbrown's ample list of sources shows there is no valid reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (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.