Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snoozelum

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 redirect to Snoezelen. Any concerns about the targeting of the redirect or the merging of the Snoezelen article into Sensory room can be dealt with by normal editorial procedures. (Note: Almost all of the g-hits I get for snoozelum are from sites in the UK and Commonwealth countries, where the term may be in use to avoid the trademark problem noted by Ochiwar.) Deor (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snoozelum[edit]

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

per WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NEO Ochiwar (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, and also no refs, not even to a piss-poor source such as urbandictionary.TheLongTone (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't substitute the template that's already at the top of every AfD for actual sources. Template:Find sources AFD is there to help you find sources to substantiate your argument, not to have other people do it for you. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a synonym/corruption of snoezelen? The latter is discussed in depth at [1] and [2] and mentioned in a bunch of gushy local newspaper stories. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not find the nice coverage as insinuated by Cirt, the sources I find are mostly mirrors of this Wikipedia article or neologisms for Sensory room which exists already. This article thus fails WP:NEO. The article Snoezelen also exists already. If this is article is a corruption of Snoezelen as suggested by Sammy1339 perhaps a redicert is appropriate. Ochiwar (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC). Also the article Snoezelen states that: The term "Snoezelen" ... is a neologism (for Sensory room) and ... is a registered trademark of the English company Rompa which sells equipment for Snoezelen rooms. Thus Snoezelen also fails wp:neo and should actually be merged or redirected to Sensory room. Ochiwar (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a merge to Snoezelen. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoezelen. Probably could've just been speedied or boldly redirected. I'm not seeing any reason to think this isn't just a misspelling or alternative spelling, and runs into problems with DICDEF, NEO, GNG, etc. as per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 26 October 2014 (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.