Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boomz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnCD notified me about the sources (which the AFD was in my watchlist), so I'll post more. I still think that this shouldn't have an article. I think that the article still fails WP:N because the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue and Keep I have added more details and some references to justify notability. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment by nominator: that's better, and I will invite the !voters above to have another look, but I'm afraid it's still not good enough:
- it's a neologism - see also WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day,
- it's not an encyclopedia article, because it's about a word - a dictionary definition. You could try it on our sister project Wiktionary, but I doubt if it would pass their Attestation requirements,
- certainly, for Wikipedia, blogs and Youtube are not considered reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a poorly-sourced dictionary definition. Even if it was properly sourced and it could be shown that it was a "notable word", it still wouldn't belong in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. neologism, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, possible Wikipedia:Attack_page, plus more importantly see Wikipedia:Notability - more specifically Notability is not temporary. At most, it warrants being merged to the Ris Low article as it is only notable in that context.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2009 (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.