Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slopseller


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has with withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Slopseller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced since creation in 2007. Roxy . wooF 19:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a dictionary definition and there’s already an entry for it on Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Keep after edits. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been expanded substantially with sources by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. It is no longer a simple dictionary definition. — Goszei (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:HEY. It will be a bias to remove historical information, especially when the reason of sources is satisfied. RV (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wut? -Roxy . wooF 23:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wut is an inappropriate word to use at this portal. My comments are simple to understand—the Heymann Standard. And everyone is agreeing. You know floccinaucinihilipilification. (Oxford dictionary describes floccinaucinihilipilification as &ldquo;the action or habit of estimating something as worthless”. . We have seen it at various pages such as [] Bolt (fabric), and more recently at ]Ninon and same at []Khes. Kindly be careful.RV (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Slop (clothing). The article certainly goes into much more detail than a simple dictionary, and it's a notable type of clothing that is discussed by historians, with examples kept in museums. It was discussed by governments as it's own separate type of clothing for tax rates. It was part of rules and regulations of the US Navy and Australian labor camps. It was kind of a big deal. The article isn't even that poorly written. The topic is notable and has plenty of coverage in reliable sources, the article just has the wrong name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to new title per ScottishFinnishRadish. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If ScottishFinnishRadish cares to look through the page history, he might notice that when I nominated the page, it was a shitty unsourced stub that had three sentences and no refs. Perhaps a kind closer will snow close this as Keep now that some improvements have been made. -Roxy . wooF 23:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , even without the article having been updated I still would have said keep. A couple minutes revealed more than enough to show it was a notable topic, I will admit that I didn't see that the article was recently expanded when I voted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article content suggests slop trade as the title. Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2021 (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.