Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full service (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 merge to Full Service. This is kind of a strange one, since the consensus at this AfD affects the fate of a different article. The consensus is to merge Full service with Full Service (capital S) and turn it into a more complete dab page, but per WP:MOS the correct title for the dab page is with a lowercase s. So, please merge these two pages, put the result at Full service, and turn Full Service into a redirect to Full service. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced dictionary-like article on an adjective phrase. At the previous AfD it was a different article; no consensus; but this one is really no better, with not a hint of sourcing or notability as a topic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on article; keep talk page. If the main page were "delete", at least don't delete the talk page. Instead, if deleted, re-create it as disambiguation page. It has valuable talk about the article itself, yet it may be also about usage of "full service". --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realize the existence of Full Service. Now delete this article, rename the existing dab page to "full service" (or create a redirect). Seriously, I begin to agree with the nominator's rationale; full of unsourced data and definitions. Nevertheless, this AFD must not prevent the article about the term itself from being re-created, right? --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't usually have articles about terms. Articles are about topics. The merge is move is obviously the right idea; I was also initially unaware of the disambig page with correct case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Ho, I don't understand why you would like to keep the talk page. It contains discussion from 2006 on whether to delete the content (which I gather was, at that time, about the sexual code word), plus a WikiProject Sexuality banner. Could you explain why you think this needs to be preserved? Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed my mind. I don't see anything worth keeping in the talk page other than the AFD banner. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and merge with Full Service; retain Full service as a proper DAB page, with appropriate/relevant definitions/links, as well as the DAB terms for the band and radio format. (note that Full service would be thus cut down significantly, and made a DAB page and not an article) --KarlB (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim down considerably and merge material from Full Service. There's useful material on both pages; full service should be the disambiguation page as it has the proper capitalization; Full Service should redirect to it. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the page is kept, it should be split. At present it is a poster child for WP:NAD – a list of different concepts (a type of engineering firm, retail services, a radio format, and a sexual code word) that share the same name rather than a single concept. That might be an argument for deletion. On the other hand, though, some of the content may be notable and worth keeping, especially the 'sexual code word' sense. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum – My comments above assume that the page would be kept as an article. Editors above seem to be arguing that the page be turned into a DAB. If that were the case, obviously splitting would be inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or split off the topics. I don't see anything wrong with an article about this topic; it's clearly notable as anything else we have in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence does not equate notability. And dictionaries do not prove sufficient notability. Usage of a term must be explained in an encyclopedic manner. Look at Bloke (word); it inspired "First Bloke" because news says so. Origin must be proven by reliable sources, as well. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a list of definitions is not an article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has received significant discussion in multiple different independent and reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using a term is not the same as discussion of a term (and that discussion would have to be out of context of any of the particular meanings of the term in order to justify this page, i.e., discussion of the "full service" radio format would justify the existence of the Full service (radio format) article which is not what this page is.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Full Service per WP:NOTDIC, which could then be moved to Full service as a proper title for the dab page. (Maybe the article titles could be swapped to retain the history for attribution.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is a significant lexical subject and would be a shame to remove it. OracleB (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.