Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquastor


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aquastor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems little more than a definition - the examples are from someone's personal website. I've left both references although neither qualify as reliable sources. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and no notability is shown for the term, I think it should be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The fact that this term's survived on the order of five hundred years suggests that there are bound to be better sources available. Being unfamiliar with Paracelsus, I'm unable to judge how important the term is in his works, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He only seems to use it once, see . Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the source, Paracelsus defines it once and doesn't use it otherwise. Very well, I'm convinced then. Delete. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep . Gene Wolfe has used these as characters (I've added the link, but I'm not sure how to cite it - would a direct reference to the book be enough?), although I'm not completely convinced that's enough to ensure the term's notability. Tevildo (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unsurprisingly, it's also not an uncommon brand name for water tanks, swimming pools, etc.  I've not found anything of that nature which would be an obvious pass of WP:CORP, and anything that did would probably merit its own article. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The term is only used twice (once in fiction the other by Paracelsus), and I could only find one other mention which is already cited in the article. I do not see this meeting the notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Changing my opinion to reflect consensus. Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2009 (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.