Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimmigrants


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimmigrants
Neologism only popular on a few message boards User:Neverfailtotry (talk • contribs) removed prod tag. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Irishpunktom\talk 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn epithet. AKADriver 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia's blatant attempts at censorship aside, this term is quickly becoming relevant. Delete it if you must, but you'll come back with your tail between your politically correct legs and add it later.  In all seriousnes, if Wikipedia is supposed to be "impartial", I find it laughable you're fussing over this word.  It's more than just a few forums..do your research.  Besides, "spam", "netizen", "blogger"...these all started off "on a few forums".  Your excuses are weak, and probably indicative of a conservative upbringing. Neverfailtotry
 * A fuss indeed. This article is being given the same sort of intense scrutiny as such hot-button topics as orange pants.&mdash; AKADriver  &#x260E;  21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be a common argument by people arguing for newly made-up words, that other, now common terms were once equally obscure. The difference is that words like "spam", "netizen", "blogger" are no longer obscure. This one is still about as obscure as they come, and we don't add words here because they might become common or are "quickly becoming relevant." Fan1967 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete with orange pants. Neologism, dic-def, and insufficiently notable.  Stormfront and a Freerepublic thread aren't reliable sources, and if they were, their usage still wouldn't make this an encyclopedic article.  Barno 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki If it is a proper word that is.  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO, though based on a grand total of 17 unique GHits, hasn't even made it to neologism status. Fan1967 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Hirudo 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Michael Crook, he apparently owns a website with that name (at least Neverfailtotry added a mention of it to that article). --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No indication at all that this term is in common use. Does not deserve any entry at all, even a redirect. Fan1967 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if individual racist epithets routinely received their own articles, this one still wouldn't qualify. --phh (t/c) 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:35, 27 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.