Talk:ASoIaF

RFD discussion: September–November 2017

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

ASoIaF

An abbreviated book title? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is LOTR as well, in the same vein. I have no strong opinion on the matter. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Do you know why LOTR was kept? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's never been nominated for deletion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep (both) - they seem to be used in the real world. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know if it has ever been discussed, but the criteria for inclusion have always been applied much more loosely to initialisms during my time here. ASoIaF is far from the being the only entry with the initialism of a term we would never add (A.A.C.C.A., LATCH, YKCA, etc.). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep if attestable. Maybe send to RFV if needed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I'd also be in favor of deleting LOTR and the ones Ungoliant mentioned. --WikiTiki89 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep No reason to exclude under our current criteria. I wouldn't mind if we had a policy that excluded these, though they seem to meet a possible need on the part of someone trying to understand, say, an online discussion. I only see one valid attestation for this in the entry, so RfV might be worth the trouble. DCDuring (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep if attestable. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• RFD passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)