Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 plus 2 (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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 plus 2

It can refer to more than what this article covers, including 4 (number). Invitatious (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Is this really a new nomination? I think the proposer doesn't understand that there's a disambiguation page, and this isn't it. See 2+2. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that's no reason to delete it. I see there's now a link to 2+2 to cover your point.-gadfium 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JChap (Talk) 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to 5~~ Strong keep. That's what disambiguations are for, which altready exists at 2+2 as noted above. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AfD (VfD at the time) discussion is here. DarthVad e r 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly could be kept if moved to 2+2 (car body style) — and if a source cuold be found. But, for now Delete as unsourced protologism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 Questions: This looks like a different topic than the original AfD, is it? Are there any trade magazines, engineering, popular science, auto show, hot rod, etc., that can be used to substantiate this phrase? Ste4k 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I think it is indeed a different topic. I recently created a disambiguation page because "2+2" redirected to "Two plus Two publishing". I think the original AfD came before I did that cleaning up of redirects and disambiguations. [EDIT: In response to question 2, the article mentions several vehicles which specifically include the term in their model name. The manufacturers' data (such as sales brochures) supports this.] – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup by adding sources. Possibly move as proposed by Arthur Rubin. Not a protologism. The term has been used for decades (with this meaning) in dozens of issues of Road & Track, Car and Driver, Autoweek, and other magazines, as well as the advertising of several manufacturers noted in the article. Unfortunately I don't have access today to my old collections, or I'd find and cite some sources. Barno 14:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Barno with good faith. Ste4k 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You have to ask yourself, "is this right for an encyclopedia?" Zos 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, unless you think we should junk the Coupe page too. Moriori 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, things seem to be sensibly set up as they are now. This is a very different topic to the original AfD. -- Mithent 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to 2 plus 2 (car). Moriori 04:08, 15 July 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.