Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Botsourcing


 * 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. non-notable/poorly-sourced neologism; wiktionary would toss it away, as well. slakr \ talk / 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Botsourcing

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

This article fails WP:NOT, primarily that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per my rationale provided as nominator, this is a non-notable neologism unsupported by reliable third party sources. And even if it were, its still a dictionary definition.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the nominator need a bold faced vote in addition to the nomination text? Chris Picone! 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even independent of "not a dictionary", there's no sources of the term even being used. Chris Picone! 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Botsourcing. I think this explains the origin of the term. Kinkydarkbird (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to Wictionary As per WP:NOT 83.100.203.53 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary This is a useful word which should be documented in Wiktionary. Tommy (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (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.