Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby bat


 * 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! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Baby bat

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

neologisms‎; little to no widespread use, no references Beach drifter (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NEO; since it's just a slang term for something else, the article can't be more than a WP:DICDEF. If someone wants to recast the focus of the article on the clothing line and can indicate its notability, then I'll switch to Keep. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Oh hey, it has an UrbanDictionary article! Those are definitely reliable! Anyways, jokes aside, this fails WP:N and should be redirected to Bat. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To bat? Even though its meaning (as opposed to its origin) isn't related to that use of the word? I thought you were going to say Goth subculture. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. I haven't seen "baby bat" used to widely refer to what it claims to be, yet I would venture a guess that someone searching for baby bat would be looking for bats? I'm unsure on this one, so I would obviously like to hear some more opinions on this. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire and storm: I'm with Darth Panda; I've seen sources more unreliable than UrbanDictionary, but they tend to be written with crayon on torn-off sides of cardboard boxes.   Ravenswing  20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete You know its not a good sign when the first thing up on Google are photos of an actual baby bat. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable neologism, possibly made up by the editor who created the page, delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bat, or perhaps Bat. It's a remotely conceivable search term. Someone might want to know the proper term for a baby bat, and the main bat article gives them the answer. Zagalejo^^^ 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate the terms - to bat and Goth subculture. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bat since the other meaning has no reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my view, whether it is policy or not, that disambig pages are allowed to contain entries that would not warrant their own article because of sourcing, notability, etc. I think that disambig pages ought to err on the side of inclusionism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that. Otherwise you have a case where the article John is open to every one of the world's million-plus Johns adding their own names (I'd object if someone added you to the Richard page!), and everyone who makes up a slang use for a word can add a hatnote to an article under that word reading, "X may also refer to this word I made up one day". WP:N, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP all need to apply. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Largo; there's no evidence that this is an actual widely spread term. My own prejudice is that disambiguation pages should err on the side of verifiability and accuracy.   Ravenswing  14:26, 18 November 2008 (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.