Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHANA


 * 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 keep.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AHANA

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced neologism not in common use or frequency Chris 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) *Delete. I don't know how 'neo' a word has to be to be branded a neologism, but in any case it fails WP:V. Dbromage [Talk]  04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MADEUP. Neologism. --Alksub 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Never heard it used. Speciate 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. Changing my vote as it does appear to be verifiable from reliable sources. Also see WP:IDONTKNOWIT regarding limited geographic usage of the term. Dbromage  [Talk]  07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as hoax, I have never heard of this or been refered to as such, without any reference this doesn't meet WP:V. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Not only is it made up in school, it's ostensibly being used in an official capacity! Nonetheless, despite this, it reeks of being a neologism.  Strong delete accordingly. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep and clean up. I don't like the term and think it's ugly, but that's the only other reason I can come up with to maintain a !vote of delete, and since it's sourced, it can stay. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)`
 * Delete WP:NEO - I mean perhaps if they could find a source that used it or even sources about it that would be acceptable - but until then it's relatively obvious how to handle the situation.-- daniel  folsom  05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO also possible hoax. Oysterguitarist 06:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Theres actually many references on the web; --Vonones 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added some references. --Vonones 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe has articles on this that I have referenced. --Vonones 06:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the newly added sources + additional ones on google news Corpx 07:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because of sources added. Oysterguitarist 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - with new references it meets WP:V, although its still something a little limited to a certain geographical area. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because of new sources. --Alksub 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Now sourced. ♠  TomasBat   00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Source appears to be an example of WP:NOT for things made up in school. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2007 (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.