Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambisinister


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ambisinister

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of any significant coverage of this concept. The references are essentially to sources about handedness, but not about "Ambisinister", which is not even mentioned in any of the references that are available online, and the reference to "Psychology for A-level" is unverifiable, as there is more than one book that could refer to. PROD was contested purely on the grounds that the word is listed at dictionary.com, and therefore exists. However, existence is not notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include "Ambisinister" (and what's an adjective doing as an article title anyway?), and refers "Ambisinistrous" to "Ambilaevous", marking this as "rare" and defined as "As it were, left-handed on both sides; the opposite of ambidexter.". If there is no word for the noun form, it cannot merit an encyclopedia article. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article does not establish remark-ability for the subject.. whatever it is. Perhaps the original author can sandbox the article and make it suitable for the article namespace, however, as of right now, delete it. Petiatil&raquo;Talk 15:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's basically a made-up word, a few silly entries found by google of the here's-a-word-you-haven't-heard and because you didn't study classics at school it sounds reasonably impressive to you. Not. WP is not a dictionary. Utter b***ocks. (OK, Not Notable). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although the obscure term exists in some dictionaries, there is no evidence to support that is is a distinct medical entity or a term for which an article can be composed about the term itself. Additionally, a quick review of sources shows that the Scientific American source does not mention anything related to some sort of non-dominance.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy, it should be transfered to wikitionary. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 25 October 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.