Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Typographical Unit

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) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Typographical Unit

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

Term used in one college only. the author cheekily claims: "this article is only created to help the 15,000 new students that enroll to CBS". So put it on the college website, not here! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article specifically asserts that there are no written records explaining what a Standard Typographical Unit is. If so, that means that the definition is unverifiable and should not be included in this Wikipedia article. How do we know the author is defining an STU correctly? Maybe an STU equals two or three characters, not just one as this article claims. Also, this term is non-notable and only of interest at one school, per the nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I agree with the comments above. This article contains the seeds of its own destruction. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Five Google hits, and in one of them the preview shows: "utterly non-notable locally-used term." Telling. I think that's from the PROD two weeks ago; things haven't improved. --Glenfarclas (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments above. --Brunk500 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard delete per nom, I cannot see how the proposed deletion was ever overturned, but I guess anyone can make that call. We're an encyclopedia, not a weird version of Urban Dictionary for a handful college kids. JBsupreme (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the article's own text, subject fails notability. A whopping one ghit with -wikipedia confirms it. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable term used in one institution. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (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.