Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex (paranormal)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex (paranormal)

Prod removed without addressing the issues presented. Still just a neologism from a TV show. Closedmouth (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a one-line article which bellows its lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is called a stub. This particular one-liner can be expanded with additional info in contrast to what is usually deleted as a dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this page is itself probably not reliable as a source, it suggests further reading on the topic of vortexes, so it is not just a neologism from a TV show. How did you even come to that conclusion, nom? There's no mention of TV at all. Found several other links on Google about the topic too. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the references are visible, how the nominator came to that conclusion should be clearer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, the link to it on Vortex (disambiguation) should be also. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand, per MacGyverMagic. Firebat08 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following comment was made by the page creator, though they put it as a source in the article: "It May not be as scientific as most things on Wikipedia, but it is still a worthy article. I have added a reference as asked. The existence of ghosts is a matter of opinion, not of fact, so they are no grounds for deleting this article. As you have said, this is a stub, if people feel like adding to it, it is there to be added to. Deleting it would be a conflict in the interests of a Open Encyclopedia. Thank you." Firebat08 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable term, or rd somewhere appropriate. JJL (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICTDEF of a WP:NEO. This article is one short sentence. It doesn't matter what the topic is. VG ☎ 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VG. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been demonstrated the usual way. Although patently false things worry me - NPOV really nixes any deletion argument. Since it's clear it's hooey, there we are. Wily D 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel that this is WP:FANCRUFT and is unencyclopedic information.--Pmedema (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF.--Boffob (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (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.