Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random juxtaposition


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Random juxtaposition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously prodded and contested, recently I prodded it again without knowing about the previous nomination. The article is a sub-stub; this page actually contains no useful information that is not conveyed by its title; "See also" list constitutes most of it, and it seems to be built largely at random; basically, this is not an article. Also, no sources. Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I please be the first to point out that this title appears to be a random juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Delete With no reference given at all I see no reason for the subject's notability. Besides, the article is no more than a dictionary entry. SirAppleby (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly an article could be written, but this is just a dicdef and I see no clear way to improve it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 15 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.