Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art fag


 * 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. W.marsh 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Art fag

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:OR and WP:WINAD. Metrackle 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur on WP:WINAD. Belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. Arakunem 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Krimpet 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It also might fail WP:NOT. YechielMan 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not sure why I didn't nominate it the first time. JuJube 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pastordavid 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment::I have to say that not only is this original research, but it can't be anything else, because apparently nobody has written anything on the term, a quick search of all the news sources in the US via lexisnexis gets 5 hits, not so much talking about art fags or the term as much as calling people art fags, although there is one news documented self proclaimed "art fag" at least. Google Scholar has a few hits that are for the word "art fag" instead of some chemistry acronym, but no article describing the term or its rise to popularity or anyone's opinion about it. I would argue that anything relevant you could put on this page is unsourcable, based on these little searches. Apparently, our academic and popular media have nothing to say about it.66.41.66.213 01:16, 4 February 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.