Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban lumberjacking

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 redirect to Lumbersexual. As a temporary measure. Consensus is to not retain this as an article, but further editorial work is needed to merge appropriate content elsewhere, and/or rewrite this as a disambiguation page. Sandstein 18:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban lumberjacking

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, a google search only brings up the following relevant pages [1] - The Urban Lumberjack – The Accidental Eco-Warrior of the City, and a one sentence definition of the term here - [2] that do not make this article notable. Maybe more appropriate for Wiktionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a slang term for a kind of Timber recycling. Borock (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lumbersexual. The term "urban lumberjack" describes a style of fashion where urban dwellers dress like lumberjacks (i.e. grow long beards and wear plaid shirts). InStyle and Esquire Magazine both use the term "urban lumberjack" to describe the fashion trend, and JCPenney even sells urban lumberjack slippers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to dumpster diving. It appears here, so at least is not made up, but I doubt there is enough for a standalone article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the above three !votes - might not the best course of action be to add the above data to the three pages linked, and then turn this page into a DAB page, pointing to the 3 pages? If that's the decision, ping me and I'll be more than happy to take care of it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 5 January 2016 (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.