Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top of hand


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Top of hand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems like nonsense, doesn't it? An unsourced neologism. Biruitorul Talk 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is certainly not nonsense, though it is a poorly-written article.  My guess is that this was written by someone whose grasp of written English is not great, and may even be an artless translation from a Spanish article.  It is hard to judge the validity of the three external links because I do not read Spanish, but their very existence indicates the term has some currency.  No vote from me, but this is not nonsense, and might be salvageable if an editor cares to take the time. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't seem to be nonsense, and while I don't read Spanish, I'm bothered that two of the sources provided contain "blog" in the URL and that the creator of the article has a username that's the same name as the person who created the term. A google search of "top of hand" and the creator's name isn't very encouraging as far as notability is concerned. Rnb (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neologism; I don't think it could be expanded into an encyclopedic entry. (Consider including it in the Wiktionary instead, if the term has gained significant use.) Delete. (Note: I had previously proposed the article for deletion; the notice has been removed by the creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism with dubious notability. The fact that it's a marketing term doesn't help, and with all due respect to the writer, it's on the verge of being incomprehensible.  --Lockley (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The first sentence clearly indicates this is a neologism. I see no indication that it is a notable buzzword for a notable topic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2008 (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.