Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like-engirding

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like-engirding[edit]

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

Unsourced and orphaned article. Nothing to find about this in reliable independent sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if there are more sources found, it makes sense to merge into Astrological sign, which discusses other divisions like the 4 elements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if more sources are not found, and it remains unsourced then we can't determine if it's WP:OR or not and the article should probably be delete it rather than merge it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Babylonian astronomy or Astrological sign. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention at all in reliable independent sources per Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches. OR based on unreliable in-universe sources only. Nothing worth merging to any other article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few sources and nothing major. The article has been orphaned since 2009. If it was that notable, someone would have cleaned it up and removed the maintenance tag by now. --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to say, just because it was "orphaned since 2009", doesn't merit a delete. There are cases of pages which have been orphaned for very long, but that those not rule out the possibility of them being notable, no matter what. If no one cleaned it up, it could be because nobody saw it, not because it was not notable. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2012 (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.