Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Way Cousin

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. Singu larity 07:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Way Cousin[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. Refers to nonexistent documentation. Very sparse and poorly written. Possible hoax. Ward3001 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There exists no such term to describe multiple cousinship. Charles 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to ensure the page does not be deleted - the term does exist because I have a cousin who is my first, step-second, and third cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyoung761 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable third party source using the term. Heck, find several. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up the writing (ask for help by placing {{helpme}} on your talk page). Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are problems with OR and the writing style, but that is not the main problem. There is no verifiable evidence that the term even exists. Google returns only 6 hits[1], none of them pass WP:RS and certainly nothing here to satisfy WP:N. It could be that the same concept is actually known under a different name, but the article's creator needs to find that out first. Nsk92 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like it may be a term used in a very specific geographical region (such as a county or two), or even in a single family. If it cannot generalize beyond that (even with a source), it fails WP:N. Ward3001 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note below, the term is Double cousin, and there already is an article. Eauhomme (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term double cousin is more often used for this sort of thing. Note that we have double first cousin already. I can find no evidence this is a term that is even in wide use, let alone one that would pass WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question of procedure: The author appears to have blanked the article; I'm not sure if that's permanent. How long do we need to wait to change this to speedy delete? Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure on the correct procedure here. The fact that the author blanked the page with no explanation at the talk page and left it blank for over 3 hours suggests that he is not going to edit it further and the page might be tagged for speedy. I left a message at the author's talk page, just in case. I think that if you tag for speedy, maybe as A3 rather than G7, and leave a message about it at the author's talk page, that'd be OK. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't blank the page - they accidentally broke the comment tag below the AfD template (which rendered the page "empty"). I've fixed it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, good catch. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per Esradekan... --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Double cousin. This is the term I have known, so I checked, and yes, the article is there. Eauhomme (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two Way Cousin, as described in the article, is not the same concept as Double cousin. I see no rationale for a merge. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Double cousin describes a different concept. A merge to that article would not be appropriate here and can only generate more confusion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 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.