Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine cup


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Columbine cup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dictionary entry with little chance of expansion. Doesn't seem very notable, could maybe be incorporated into a glossary or list somewhere? In fact, the whole content of this article could probably be merged into the columbine cup paragraph in Masterpiece, which is the only article that links here anyway. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn as per below.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a dictionary entry; it's a stub. See WP:DICDEF which explains the common confusion of these.  Also, merger and deletion are incompatible – see WP:MAD.  See also AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies, it's a dictionary entry with one sentence worth of encyclopedic information, which is just about all it'll ever have. Not every design of cup is notable. Anyway, I'm well aware of MAD, which does not in fact say that merger and deletion are incompatible, just that they should be sparingly used. Since the content to be merged was written by a single author (a bot has no IP rights, I added an AfD and you added a picture – neither of which are to be merged in), and the only link *to* this article is *from* the article it should be merged into, there's no problem simply mentioning the author of the content in the edit history and deleting the article.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It just needed expanding which I have done. it now easily passes the GNG with entries in three works that are authorities in their field:
 * The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts - Oxford University Press
 * The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance - Oxford University Press
 * The Penguin Dictionary of Decorative Arts by Honour and Fleming
 * I hope the nominator will now graciously withdraw the nomination.Philafrenzy (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - well sourced article of encyclopedic value. Far more than a dictionary entry.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 8 February 2018 (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.