Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tat (consumer item classification)

: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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[Tat (consumer item classification)]]=

:{{la|Tat (consumer item classification)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tat_(consumer_item_classification) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tat (consumer item classification)}})

This article is a completely uncited essay about an everyday concept. Lacking citations, the discussion of economic effects must be assumed to be the author's own speculation. I have attempted a Google search, but there are too many terms and acronyms reading "tat". Nothing evidently relevant showed up. I think it is not notable. Stfg (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete? This is weird. On one hand the deletion nomination reckons it is an "everyday concept", which would make it immediately notable. On the other, indeed I can't find anything else on the concept apart from [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tat#English its vocabulary definition] and some [https://www.google.com/search?q=tat+trinket&btnG=Cerca+nei+libri&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=it#q=%22tat%22+cheap+item&hl=it&safe=off&tbo=1&tbm=bks&ei=6CyLUNG_GMeJ0QHfnYD4Cw&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6bdb771991db536b&bpcl=35466521&biw=1535&bih=787 usage of it in books]. The page looks totally like WP:OR now however. I wonder if there is a suitable redirect, if not, let's delete, without prejudice for recreation if sources are found. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep! (but edit) It is a commonly used word/concept in England and I was very surprised to see so few mentions on the web. Agree a complete edit is probably needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.62.85 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::I'd be all for keeping it, if it's a commonly used word/concept, but we need reliable sources to write an article on it, and we can find none. Do you have any? --Cyclopia ^talk 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look around. The reason I found this page was that during a conversation with an American friend, I used the word tat and he had never heard it before. I have used the word throughout my life and I think you'll find most English people understand the word and it's usage. The thrust of the article is correct, but it needs citation and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.62.85 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Point is, unless there are reliable sources discussing the concept, it's probably better suited for Wiktionary. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - WP is NOT a DICTionary, nor a home for unsourced WP:ESSAYS. Wiktionary, perhaps, or anybody's slang dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2012 (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.