Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nada (thread)

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. Sandstein 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nada (thread)

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

No sources cited at all and fails WP:Notability. It is very much written like a how-to-do page. Page here: [1]. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unsourced and more appropriate to Wikidictionary. Quis separabit? 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-English word for drawstring and has no place on the English-language wiki. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an English term (at elast not in the sense of the article), of dubious notability, and barely supported (no pun intended) by the reference. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (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.