Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringmonkey (second 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmonkey[edit]

See previous debate. New article is not a substantial improvement over the old one, and should be deleted for the same reasons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple redirect to chainmail would suffice. hateless 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect - No sources provided for teh term, the Chain mail article doesn't use the term, and googling doesn't seem to indicate the term is actually used. -- Whpq 18:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "ringmonkey" is indeed in chain mail. Also, this forum uses the term, which at least establishes it as a possible search term, if not an article. hateless 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. What it establishes is that the term is really only known or heard among the mail-making community. Possibly only a small segment of it, since it's one of maybe two Google hits for the term in this sense that are not from Wikipedia mirrors. To me this suggests that no one who does not already know what it means is likely to encounter it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly created on the wrong Mediawiki site as this isn't a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO Pete Fenelon 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an individual with a hearty interest in armours of all sorts who frequents a number of forums and websites also used by those in the industry of reproduction armour, I can say that I have never once seen this term used. - xiliquiern^talk 06:06, 13 November 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.