Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splash conception (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash conception

This page was nominated for deletion on July 2005. Most of the keep votes were based on the fact that this page had potential to be larger article. It is now March 06 and it is still nothing more then a dictionaty definition which should be moved to Wiktionary. Gerard Foley 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. Move to wiktionary and be done with it. Fan1967 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, continues to be an encylopedic topic with potential to become a large article. Kappa 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search doesn't show this term appearing on too many "authoritative" (i.e. medical/health) sites, from what I can tell. Non-notable neologism. --CrypticBacon 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goolging it brings up a ton of information relateing to this, seems plausable. Mike _{(T C)} 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it's worth, I strongly dispute that a Google search turns up a "ton" of information. Many of the articles listed are talking about a band somewhere named "Splash conception", the Wikipedia article is 1st or 2nd (depending on if you search w/ or w/o quotation marks), and there are several Wikipedia mirrors. I fail to see any reputable web sites in the mix showing that this is something more than simply a non-notable neologism. However, if you (or anyone else) disagree please respond. --CrypticBacon 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the first page, the top 7 hits for this on goolge are related to this. 1 is wikipedia, and 2-3 are for a band. Mike _{(T C)}

05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any Ghits which Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. - Rynne 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly encyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find any verifiable sources for this in a search of sources including Academic Search Premier, eLibrary Science, the Health and Wellness Centre, the Marshall Cavendish Science Reference Centre or two newspaper databases. For that reason I concur with Cryptic Bacon's assessment. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People, this is nothing more then a dictionary definition. It's one and only sentence has a citation needed note. It's had 6 months to turn into an encyclopedia entry and has failed to do so. Gerard Foley 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. This has been around a while but hasn't evolved. It survived a VfD in 2005. I don't think it's a neologism -- I've heard the term used, and was surprised there weren't more references -- but I agree that it probably won't evolve to more than a dicdef. Samir ∙ T C 09:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary definition. If there's something verifiable on this topic (and we haven't found it in months), put relevant details into conception or somewhere else appropriate. Ned Wilbury 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As important as it is to know about Ass babies, I completely agree with Gerard Foley. This seemed to pass its first AfD largely on the caveat that the article be cleaned-up and made encyclopedic. Since the article has essentially remained unchanged in the 8 months since then, I see no reason to believe such encyclopedic content will ever be forthcoming. - Rynne 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sentiments of Rynne and Gerald Foley. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. --mm e inhart 23:39, 18 March 2006 (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.