Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'zza nicknames

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. --Coredesat 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'zza nicknames

'zza nicknames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article seems not to meet the criteria for a wikipedia article especially due to notability concerns and the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a repository for information. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notice that this was created by one of the authors of Gazza (nickname) (AfD discussion) just before that article was deleted. In that AFD discussion, it was pointed out that this is territory already covered by hypocoristic, diminutive, and nickname. One doesn't need AFD in order to merge duplicate articles, however. Uncle G 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. It's unfortunate an IQ of at least 70 isn't required for editing on Wikipedia. --Nonstopdrivel 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost original research. Poorly referenced, redundant article. Format 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was the editor that originally raised issues about Hezza and then brought Gazza (nickname), which it had evolved into, to AfD the first time. I also removed the prod tag as I believe that an article that has been around as this one has for a while should be discussed properly before deleting it. My concerns after the AfD were meet in part. This usage is common, particularly in Australia. It is not patent nonsense. Maybe some of it is original research, but if so it should be sources or removed. My concerns however remain. This is badly put together and really the use of these nicknames is just not notable. For now, I support a weak delete. --Bduke 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- to balance the deletionists! It is a notable language phenemenon - particularly in British English - and there is a glimmer of citation available. The article on Oxford "-er" shows what can be done -- needing a masive cleanup isn't a good enough reason for delete. I don't see this material covered much in hypocoristic, diminutive, and nickname, which seem poor articles themselves. I would prefer to see it flagged for a complete re-write rather than lost. --mervyn 11:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The compilation of it all into one article seems to be Original research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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.