Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming
Those who claim lack of sources seem to ignore Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. This article is just a stub, and has a great potential for expansion. If you go to Barnes and Noble, you will find at least several books entirely devoted to this topic. That is by far enough to meet |Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Those who say this doesn't appear simply |personally not to like the idea of this article. The dicdef argument is not enough to delete it either. Look at #DICDEF. It says ''Definitions. Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible.'' This says they should be ''expanded'', not deleted. Being short or being a stub does not mean it is a dicdef. Yes, it is true that the majority now say it should be deleted. But these are mostly just votes. The keeps here have much better points
— User:Shaliya, 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:IDL||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Notability)