Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAJOLE (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per consensus  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CAJOLE
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this article really notable enough for an article? I believe that more information (which I have been unable to find) is need to establish the notability required. Kivar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to cajole. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article doesn't assert notability and the article hasn't been improved since the last AfD which seemed to be the the bulk of the keep arguments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see why this topic doesn't deserve an article. A language that has been the topic of published literature http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/3069/ --Oldak Quill 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability. The published literature is the paper itself. If it were notable, it would be referenced elsewhere. I can be convinced by cites that show this, but I can't find any myself at Google, Google News, or online university library search. Frank  |  talk  18:19, 17 June 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.