Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schleifer


 * 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 Keep. Article has been improved considerably during the discussion, and since improvement there is clear consensus to keep.Michig (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Schleifer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's an ornament. No, it's a German late-medieval dance form in 3/4 metre. Wait, it's both. Neither is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. Wikipedia is not a collection of random bits of information glued together by a common name. Sum mer PhD (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. If you've never heard of a schleifer, even though I provided a source, then maybe you should ask for another source. AFD is not cleanup. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -it's also not Wiktionary as you have been told before.  He  iro  01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Info has already been merged to an article with lots of similar ornaments. Why is a red link better than a redirect? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe you should have done the research and added the info to the other articles to begin with instead of creating a stub combining two separate and disparate subjects that all told only equaled barely 4 lines of text.  He  iro  02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But since you asked WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . He  iro  02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability established and article fleshed out quit a bit, kudos to whoever did that.  He  iro  19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: malformed WP:DICTDEF stub. An unsourced claim, a quote and then an irrelevant claim do not make the basis for an acceptable article. If sufficient sources to demonstrate that the topic is at least marginally notable it can be added as a section into Ornament (music). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to relevant section of Ornament (music). Schleifer as ornament is certainly notable; the New Grove dictionary, a highly reputable source, actually has a (short) separate article on this topic.  But I think this information would be more useful in the context of other ornaments.  Ditto for schleifer as dance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus33 (talk • contribs)
 * Already merged to Schleifer (the part I wrote) and to Medieval dance (the part someone else wrote, and which SummerPhD and I felt didn't belong here). I would reduce the current article text to a redirect, but I'm not sure that would be called "blanking" or something like that. What's the rule on this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would involve you deciding that the consensus here is to redirect. I don't see any such consensus. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Even if the article is not yet large enough, this is a significant ornament in the 18th century. I'll try to amplify with sources that I know. (But it should be a warning not to create articles until you have ample sources.) -- kosboot (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per kosboot. -- Klein zach  01:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach: As Kosboot hasn't added any sources yet, you are !voting on blind faith. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, some of us work long days, you know. I'd say you should wait at least a week. -- kosboot (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of faith for an article that has been a dictionary definition stub since January 2008, and even though it has been prodded and discussed for 4 days now still has yet to have any new relevant sources or material added.  He  iro  03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just found out about it last night. If you've had any interest, you would have been able to find the sources yourself, instead of being so eager to delete the article. -- kosboot (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wasn't aware of this article until yesterday. It didn't have a banner on it until then. Since the information is apparently genuine enough, we should have enough time to look at how it should be presented. -- Klein zach  09:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article is no longer as ambiguous as it was when nominated. It's not a Wiktionary entry, either. It describes an historically significant musical ornament. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: "It's an ornament. No, it's a German late-medieval dance form in 3/4 metre. Wait, it's both."  This comment is racist against Schleifers.  Which a lazy use of google shows is worth writing about.. (whether it editorially should be combined elsewhere is an editorial decision we can decide later.)--Milowent • hasspoken  22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Michael Bednarek.  Nik the  stoned  10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I already gave evidence above that it is notable, and I would now like to change my vote to a Keep. Recent edits have made this a substantial, indeed very nice article. Opus33 (talk)
 * Keep Evidence has been found and presented that this is clearly a notable ornament. The encyclopedia would be incomplete without listing it.   D r e a m Focus  09:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG if nothing else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 30 January 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.