Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APDTA


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

APDTA

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Article used as source on term does not actually include term. (Clarification: the term is included in a comment, posted by a user using the same username as the originator of the Wikipedia article, posted on the date that the reference was added to the Wikipedia article. Actually, the term is the comment.) Prod was deleted on the basis that someone holds a registered trademark on it, but that (and one photo of that trademark on a shirt) does not equal notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — Jean Calleo (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed The Atlantic Wire reference. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * with so many people using the term All Praises Due to Allah and its abbreviation why would this be deleted. It is very well written. APDTA is not a dictionary word or new term but an abbreviation to an ancient phrase. APDTA is now a brand, logo, a trademarked one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiobums (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was extensive, well source discussion of the abbreviation, then it would qualify, but just because a term exists does not mean that there is much to be said encyclopedically about it. If it's a term that's in clear use, you can see about putting it in Wiktionary. As for it being a trademark - there have been over 3 million trademarks that folks have sought to federally register; surely we are not to have articles on all of them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Just an assortment of definitions, with no substantial content, and no evidence that any of the meanings is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * delete . Also please check out Nation19 and other pages edited by this creator. Hes spam linking it everywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2011 (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.