Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambiquin

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ambiquin
dictionary-def (not a great one). Only 7 googles (6 distinct, one of those is us). Rest don't seem relevant. non-notable. (valid?). We could transwiki to wiktionary but I don't think they'd want it and could do a better job, so I propose just delete RJFJR 03:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7? I get 3.  Wiktionary would want evidence that this is a word.  I cannot find any.  Since it isn't a word, it cannot represent the concept that it purports to describe.  At best this is a move to some more appropriate title and delete redirect.  However, I'm not convinced that there's a concept here, either.  All graphic representations of words can be read from different orientations.  (Consider: Have you ever read something viewed upside down?  Is that not "reading from a different orientation"?)  If the concept is different to this, there's not enough context in this article to explain what that concept actually is. Perhaps the author is thinking of ambigram, a more specific concept (see the article).  We have an article on that, and there's no need for a redirect from this non-word to that article. Delete. Uncle G 14:11, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .