Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantotomy


 * 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   merge to Hill figure. SarahStierch (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gigantotomy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The word "Gigantotomy" appears to be a neologism failing WP:NEO, invented "half humorously" by Morris Marples in 1949. It hasn't really caught on, with no dictionary references, nor peer reviewed journals. The correct phrase is "Hill figure". Iantresman (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close. This article is full of encyclopedic content, and the nominator's issue appears to be with the title rather than the content.  From what I can see here, the issues are (1) should this article and hill figure be merged, and (2) if they are, what should the merged article be titled?  Neither of these presents an AfD question, and these questions ought to be discussed through the normal editorial discussion process. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hill figure. There's a strong case for saying these are duplicate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever is done with this article should probably also be done with Leucippotomy. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge this and Leucippotomy to Hill figure. These are essentially all duoplicate articles.  Hill figures might be the best title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hill figure since it's a duplicate article. Then discuss proper naming at Talk:Hill figure. --Batard0 (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; they are not duplicate articles, though very similar. I echo the points made by Arxiloxos. Fireflo (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2012 (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.