Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izziehugger

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 18:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Izziehugger
Article created by LevelCheck, based on an invented term authored by a usenet troll named Matt Giwer to describe people who like Israel. Google test returns about 6 hits, most likely related to message board postings by Giwer himself. --Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another disruptive article creation.  Completely and obviously non-notable. Jayjg (talk)  07:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with Matt Giwer before on Usenet. He's an anti-Semitic Holocaust-denier, and apparently a prolific enough one to rate his own page on the Nizkor Project. Giwer himself might be notable enough to rate an article (he doesn't have one currently) but his nasty little neologisms aren't. Anyway, delete. Firebug
 * In that case I vote to Merge into an article on Matt Giwer anyone who makes it to nizkor projects list of kooks is notable. Klonimus 07:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete orig research.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should really be a speedy delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. -- 8^D gab 13:35, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; neither a particularly creative nor a historically-interesting expression. &mdash; RJH 15:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, original research, disruptive. -- M P er el ( talk 15:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per RJHall. Samaritan 17:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Should've been a speedy delete. No reasonable Wikipedian would have created this.  Postdlf 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that this page is being used as evidence in Requests for Arbitration's case on LevelCheck, which I proposed today--please don't delete until that case is finished, if it is accepted by the Arbcom. Meelar (talk) 21:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would rather use the diffs as evidence: they contain more details (such as author, date, etc) and are more reliable because they do not depend on subsequent edits.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As someone who's dealt with Matt Giwer (or a good impostor) on the POV-RAY newsgroups, I can confirm that he uses the word.  I can also confirm that he's just about the only person who does.  The term isn't significant enough for Wikipedia, and I doubt Wiktionary would want it. --Carnildo 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Unless it qualifies as a speedy, in which case do that! Master Thief Garrett 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not every epithet is encyclopedic. And, someone wishing to CREATE a new epithet could simply salt the web with a few instances, then create a Wikipedia article like this.A2Kafir 16:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neologism whose usage is negligible. Delete. -- Hoary 02:56, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.