Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double-Tongued Dictionary


 * 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   no consensus. Even after relisting, the consensus is unclear at best. Almost as many wish to retain in some format or another, either through outright keep or merge, as favor deletion - and secondary sources have been provided and recommended during the course of the AFD. It is indeed possible that a merge outcome might be the best idea, but that could be something to discuss in more depth and at more length, over a greater extended period of time than a simple AFD, at the talk page of the article in question. -- Cirt (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Double-Tongued Dictionary

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced website article that does not claim notability. But the article has been around since 2006, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead of speedy deleting it per A7. A Google search indicates that the website may be notable.  Sandstein  21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep amongst other links found, per and results in book searches.  Shiva   (Visnu)  22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete one reference on an Indian blog does not make it notable. - Selket Talk 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to say "on an Indian blog"? What if it were on an American or British blog? Saying so seems to subtly put Indians down and might come across as offensive. The nationality of a blog doesn't affect notability in this instance. Kansan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it can't get a reference from its country of origin (in this case the United States). I would have said the same thing if it were a British or Australian blog.  Please don't be so quick to accuse others of bias. -Selket Talk 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Grant Barrett. Per probable notability via google book and google scholar searches. (I have no time to devote to this, this week, otherwise I'd dig deeper). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Grant Barrett seems reasonable to me, if this is a project of his. There does not seem to be much in-depth information on the dictionary itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the one blog doesn't seem to establish notability (if every website ever linked to on a blog became notable, what blog or website wouldn't pass the threshold?), and "probable notability" isn't a reason to keep, especially after the user who mentioned it admits that they did not look into it. Kansan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did in fact add 3 references to the article yesterday, taken from Google Scholar results. However I do agree with Kotfoxxe that a merge is probably preferable, as there doesn't seem to be sufficient information at this time, to get much beyond the current size. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While I understand the urge to keep as much information as possible, I disagree with the merge, and there isn't enough coverage to keep this as is. The author's page says that this is an award winning site, but I can't find reference to the award, even on the website itself. Sven Manguard  Talk  02:51, 12 October 2010 (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.