Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketroid (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. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Marketroid
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a dictionary entry. Policy WP:NOTDIC. Marketroid already exists at Wiktionary. All references fail WP:RS as self-published sources. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On seeing "(2nd nomination)" here I found WP:Articles_for_deletion/Marketroid already reached a DELETE close 9 years ago. I tagged the article for Speedy delete: G6. Technical deletions of articles that have already been AFD'd. This AFD may be closed as moot. Alsee (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-opening for clarification. Alsee, according to the page history and deletion log, this page was deleted after the 2006 deletion discussion, but was subsequently recreated in 2009, so I don't see how G6 applies. Did you mean to CSD under G4? In that case it would be best to have an admin check whether both versions are substantially similar or not. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with re-open. I didn't see it had been deleted and recreated. We need to AFD it, as a recreated dictionary entry. Alsee (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The term is clearly notable (and if not, please delete it from Wiktionary too). Nor is presence at Wiktionary reason alone to delete it from WP. Wiktionary is a very sparse dictionary (and not even an etymological dictionary) whilst WP is an encyclopedia. If there is scope for encyclopedic coverage of a notable topic (i.e. an article can be produced that surpasses DICDEF) then I see no reason at all to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has three refs to self-published dictionaries and one ref to self-published useless example of the word being used. All 4 need to be removed. The article fails both WP:V and WP:NOTDIC. Can you offer ONE source to provide encyclopedic coverage (not dictionary coverage)? Alsee (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More inclined to delete as although I like the article being neat and sourced, essentially there aren't many good significant and notable sources, with Books, News, highbeam and thefreelibrary finding nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister   talk  05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable, per Alsee's breakdown of the sources (and my own Googling); also fails WP:NOTNEO. APerson (talk!) 19:30, 8 June 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.