- 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 staked. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fangsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to indicate usage of this term in mainstream publications. Article was created by a WP:SPA who only edits articles related to the vampire subculture. Previously PRODded, the PROD template was then removed by the article's creator without giving a reason. Difluoroethene (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Weak KeepArticle has an irritating, unencyclopedic "for insiders" conversational tone.Butit appears to be a real wordand topic.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC) But I realized that there are no sources about the topic, just sources that use the word. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced neologism that is little more than a dictionary definition. Belongs at Wictionary, not here. WP:NEO applies. Yunshui (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam, fang you very much. There is already an article on Father Sebastiaan and this article doesn't and likely cannot offer much beyond a dictionary definition and/or links to fang-making services. Several Times (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Father Sebastiaan article was actually created today as well and may be worth examining more closely if there is a consensus to delete this page. Several Times (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.