Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipmonkeys


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chipmonkeys
a neologism developed "primarily online." Delete per WP:NOT --Hetar 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gw e rnol 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a neologism developing online in any way diminishes its existance? 204080 21:51, 24 April 2006
 * Please take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms. Its also worth noting that the policy on verifiability clearly states that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are verifiability not truth. Good luck, Gw e rnol 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the entry removing any references to online speculation, and have cited a source which links to a heated discussion between so called 'chipmonkeys' and genuine musicians. I believe the article should remain as the it is the most plausable explanation of the term, and its deletion could mean less mature articles are posted in its place. 204080 22:51, 24 April 2006
 * A link to a forum discussion is hardly a reliable source. --Hetar 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's as reliable as is possible to link to, as it is a term which has been coined by people during discussions, some online, some not. I still believe the term requires some form of explanation. 204080 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:NEO and WP:V. When a term developed "primarily on line" has so few hits on google, most of which don't seem to match this definition at all, it's pretty clearly an obscure usage. Fan1967 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: wikipedia is not a dictionary, and any entry must be verifiable. This one fails on both points.   Buck  e  ts  ofg  00:17, 25 April 2006 (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.