Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimney breast


 * 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 keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Chimney breast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

More of a dictionary definition than anything. I think anything useful here is already contained in chimney. Kelly hi! 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge the only mention in chimney is in an external link. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. A non-trivial well-known easily verifiable architecture element, easily expandable. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep As above, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chimney-breast) . Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; a Google Book search proves this a notable-enough term. Citing a dictionary isn't helpful, given that DICDEF is the rationale given for deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, my botch there, guess I was too keen on showing it wasn't but a cooked-up neogolism (given the background with those as you're more than aware), cites like this abound. Thanks for the nudge! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem--there is, as I saw also, plenty of good material in architectural books. It just takes a lover--of architecture, not of boobs. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Chimney Fireplace. As it stands this content could easily be incorporated there. There doesn't seem significant scope for improvement. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge into fireplace and/or chimney . -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fireplace is probably a better target and it is already mentioned there. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fireplace. No need for a stand alone article. J bh  Talk  13:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge The fascination of the creator with breasts even extends to chimney breasts! Give me strength. Merge for now. Could possibly be re-created by a more competent editor with more content per WP:TNT if necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fireplace, I agree. It doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually a real term, and deletion proves little.   Amazingly enough, there are specific terms for the filling material in such construction, and so on. Abstruse?   Maybe.  Delete? No. Collect (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fireplace. This guy is beyond belief. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think I added enough to overcome WP:DICDEF issues. There's still a question of whether it's best merged, but I'm seeing sources which make it clear this is a distinct architectural element with noted cultural variation. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and yes, as others have already noted, despite the trends noted in the article creator's interests, this is a real thing for which there are easy to find sources from some centuries of talking about it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge BMK (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Okay, we really need to start actually performing the WP:BEFORE due diligence before nominating any more of User:Neelix's articles for AfD. The fact that there are ZERO "delete" !votes speaks volumes.  Reasonable editors can differ whether the subject is better covered as part of the fireplace article or should have a stand-alone article, but this is a clearly notable topic with plenty of coverage in the pertinent literature per WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people have not indicated keep though? They have indicated merge. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Count again: there are more keeps than merges (7–6), with two expressing keep or merge. Given the split, however, WP:SNOW is not appropriate.  That said, there is clearly no appetite for "delete".  Before any more AfDs are filed for articles created by User:Neelix, I urge everyone to actually perform the duel diligence suggested by WP:BEFORE.  Most of Neelix's articles are being preserved, and this is starting to smell very inappropriate.  This is why AfD article stats are discussed during RfAs; it bears on the nominator's judgment and understanding of the notability and other suitability guidelines for stand-alone articles.  No one should be nominating articles for deletion willy-nilly, and without a good-faith belief -- based on basic due diligence of the subject article -- that they do no satisfy the applicable guidelines.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW, is, as you say, obviously not appropriate. It is basically evenly split given some have recommended a keep/merge. I have not suggested deletion but merging. You have said that most of Neelix's articles nominated for deletion are being kept but I have seen several deleted already per WP:SNOW namely Articles for deletion/Freedom Week (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Ignite the Road to Justice AusLondonder (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tons of his stuff is going down, in fact the vast majority of stuff User_talk:Neelix/deletions/Archive_1 nominated for delete/merge etc is going down if you are keeping score. Then there are all the deletes happening without discussion. I personally merged at 14 of his non-notable stubs in one go yesterday. Kelly is acting very much AGF Legacypac Even my nom right above went merge.(talk) 04:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - note that a merge counts as a keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep I was inclined to say merge but surprised to find some sources about the subject independent of definitions. Jppcap (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2015 (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.