Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnomes of Zürich

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomes of Zürich[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary entry, see WP:NOTDICT, and based on only one source. Details about origin and usage, etc., should go to Wiktionary, while a brief mention of the term and its history can be made at Banking in Switzerland, which is where people would look for this. Sandstein 18:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People will obviously look for information about the Gnomes of Zürich using this selfsame phrase, which is the natural title. The BBC article is a substantial source and is nothing like a dictionary entry – no single word, no spelling, grammar or etymology. It is easy to find more sources such as the Encyclopedia of Business in Today's World and so the notability of the topic seems clear. Note also that the Gnomes also get involved in medical matters and so there is no single satisfactory place to merge this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long established phrase and there's scope for an article here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added 10 cite books and you could easily add 20-30 more. The term obviously has importance far beyond a dictionary definition and is easily sourced well above WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:04, 11 November 2015 (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.