Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fumata nera and fumata bianca

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 Papal_election#Post-scrutiny. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fumata nera and fumata bianca[edit]

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

The English Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the Italian words for white and black smoke. What information there is are already within the articles for pope and papal conclave. How useful is a three sentences article that was an orphan for almost 8 and half years? KTC (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't put it much better, and it's not even a useful redirect. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Papal_election#Post-scrutiny - they seem to be more than dictionary terms if they are used with a wider meaning. But that sort of thing could be briefly mentioned in the article about the Papal election process. Sionk (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in Papal election, and it's an implausible search term. FurrySings (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it as Sionk said. It's still a useful thing for inclusion, it just probably doesn't need its own article. Ducknish (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested by Sionk. While I see that the Italian Wikipedia has a separate article, I don't think that is necessary since the significant facts can be adequately accommodated in the main article. The title is not the most likely of search terms, but not entirely implausible either. Remember to retarget Fumata nera and Fumata bianca as well if this page is merged and redirected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sionk. --Surturz (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Papal_election#Post-scrutiny --Jayarathina (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sionk, unless someone can demonstrate that the subject has any more depth besides being a signal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No indication that this WP:DICDEF will ever be developed into an article independent of Papal_election#Post-scrutiny. Zad68 18:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Papal election. No real need for a separate article on this. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 21:37, 13 March 2013 (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.