Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plethora (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 Soft redirect to wiktionary. Everybody agrees the front-facing content of this page should be removed, so this should work nicely. I don't think there's a good reason to delete the page first, but do correct me if I'm wrong. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

All targets violate MOS:DABMENTION, there is no specialized use of the word in wikipedia. Also WP:DABDIC. This DAB has been deleted 5 times. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete DAB with a company without an article, a random DAB and a random article. Following this logic, I could add Elephant to this page. -- » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Tagged as speedy delete, G6 for being an orphaned disambigious page, A11 for being an ad, A1 for being a page of no notability. I suspect it's a thinly vailed ad for the Plethora Corporation mentioned in the article (last in the list)--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've declined the speedy, as I don't think any of those criteria apply. That said, I don't see the use of this page, per nom. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this borders on DicDef, and fails DABMention. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Flushing (physiology) if a reliable source were found and incorporated into the article to fulfill DABmention. MarginalCost (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. The page receives over sixty views a day, so it definitely is something that readers are searching for. The title seems to meet the criteria for becoming a soft redirect to wiktionary. The only thing giving me pause is the fact that at least some of the more specialised meanings of "plethora" are covered here on wikipedia: the OED gives the obsolete meaning of "overabundance of one or more humours" (the concept doesn't appear to be treated at Humorism), as well as the contemporary meanings "excessive volume of blood (hypervolaemia or, now rarely, polycythaemia)", and "excessive fullness of blood vessels". The question is whether we'll be serving our readers best by having a dab page listing a few obscure medical meanings, or redirecting them to wiktionary. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Draft:Plethora Corporation was rejected as insufficiently notable, but apparently Plethora Records is an imprint of Obese Records. If, as comments on the talk page suggest, this word was used to refer to Flushing (physiology), that article should be edited to indicate the fact. A weak argument can be made that disambiguation is useful. On the other hand, a (similarly weak) argument can be made that a partial name matches and passing mentions are not in the spirit of DAB pages. A soft redirect to Wiktionary might be best, unless Flushing (physiology) or some other pages specifically mention Plethora. Cnilep (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Make a soft redirect to Wiktionary, to help those who are trying to find out what the word means. But this is no kind of disambiguation page, nor is one needed right now. — Gorthian (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wiktionary, as per .Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary seems like a good option here. Definitely not worth as a dab. ansh 666 07:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect (soft) to Wiktionary as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Since both of the list entries fail MOS:DABMENTION, the dictionary definition is the primary topic. —  Newslinger  talk   09:27, 26 July 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.