Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrel children (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 Consensus to keep. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrel children

Barrel children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note, page was previously deleted and meets criteria for G4, as such I have requested speedy deletion as well. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the CSD tag. The version previously deleted was only two sentences long. This incarnation is substantially different and better sourced. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article speaks about a real (and unfortunate) topic, and a lazy Google search came up with a good amount of articles. It can be expanded. --UsaSatsui 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Term dates to 1980s, was subject & title of 1996 Newsweek feature, has currency in Jamaica and Trinidad at least. Needs more sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see it is being expanded even as I wrote the above. Advice to improvers: don't use a citation as a press-release-style name-check e.g. "mentioned in Newsweek". That's fine for an AFD but in an article it's more important to go to the next step and say what Newsweek (or whomever) said about the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put in a quote from the Newsweek piece. Nick mallory 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A host of sources have been added to the article. I wonder if the nominator did any research on this before nominating it as it's a well known term in Trinidad and Jamacia with a large number of media mentions and google hits. Nick mallory 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - well-known concept; clearly notable. I wouldn't consider it a neologism since it wasn't coined by anyone in particular but arose out of common utilitarian use. Article is much more that a definition, so it doesn't fail WP:DICT any more than philosophy, science, math, or most of the other ~2 million articles that exist. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep poorly-written article, but sources show notability and scope for improvement. Jakew 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete poorly written, and sources don't show notability.--Sefringle^Talk 03:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep However, this article must be improved. RS1900 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be cleaned up, but the sources provided above indicate notability. Melsaran (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2007 (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.