Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC islands (Lesser Antilles)

ABC islands (Lesser Antilles)

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

The use of this term to refer to these specific three items appears to be original research, backed up only by self-published sources. The PROD-tag was removed by someone who claims to have seen this term used in "lots of sources", but unless they are cited rather than vaguely mentioned in an edit-summary, it is clearly non-notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's twelve sources that use the term, from 1959 to 2007, with all different authors and in different fields: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] From 1971 1959 [8] [9] and [10]. No, not all these should be added to the article, but the term is in broad common parlance. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are allowed by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
No they are not—please read WP:SPS again. Why would you say something like that? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I looked at it: it says "self-published sources are largely not acceptable".[reply]
Again: Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are not forbidden by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Are you just trolling now? ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "largely unacceptable" is weaker than "forbidden". (Bgeelhoed (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]