Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailout mentality


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bailout mentality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about a recent neologism returns just around 20 Google News hits. Trivial coverage: simple use of the phrase doesn't denote notability.  Grsz 11  17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Neologisms must go. Actually this is WP:OR anyway since it's trying to argue that the term is notable simply because it's been repeated in the news a few times. §FreeRangeFrog 19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not even a neologism. It is just two words that happen to sit next to each other. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say what Northwestgnome said. It's just an article about words that happen to appear next to eachother in a few articles. --Miss Communication (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Protologism of no particular currency, and the few Google hits are of the Hitler turnip sort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bailout. It does appear to be a neologism (i.e. more than a protologism, but still only recently used) and probably unsuitable as an article title, but sources are cited, the results found on Google news are valid, and do specifically mention the phrase, and the content is more useful than some sections already in the bailout article.  Recentism could be a problem, but the situation that resulted in the phrase being coined, and the criticism that is mentioned, is likely to have lasting notability. — Snigbrook  23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO.  caknuck °  is a silly pudding  19:06, 22 February 2009 (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.