Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdar


 * 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 reset. The article has undergone a re-write that has introduced sources, and the question of if those sources are reliable or not has not, and in all likelyhood will not, get addressed in this discussion. A certain critical mass has been achieved where there are enough (now nullified) delete recomendation that it's going to be very hard to attract enough fresh meat to garner real consensus. Wait two weeks, argue about sources on the talk page, whatever, but there is not consensus to delete here. brenneman 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewdar

 * — (View AfD)

Neologism and a dicdef. Google count is 4600 but besides Wikis and Urban dictionary (not a WP:RS), all the URLs I saw were from either blogs or hate sites. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Have heard this used a lot by Jewish friends, . Gaydar has an article. --SandyDancer 00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reliable sources. Wp:IHAVEHEARDOFIT is not a valid argument.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced neologism and dictdef, if reliable sources cannot be provided within the next five days. (aeropagitica) 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, Zoe & aero.  Dei zio  talk 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. MER-C 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently used neologism. 3 hits on Amazon books. 4 on google books. 8 hits on Factiva news database (including one in which Bryan Appleyard feels its okay to refer to this term in an interview article on Simon Schama) which includes a Washington Post editorial in which the word is used (with followup readers letters mentioning the term too). Not that the Washington Post editorial page is particularly reliable... Anyway, not enough here to merit an article Bwithh 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism, and many groups are using the suffix -dar as a joke, nothing makes this notable. Turning on my spamdar... SkierRMH 07:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and make a little section in Gaydar for it. Delete after that. Just H 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Oo7565 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is triggering by deletedar.-- danntm T C 21:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, I always use by Jewdar to find Kosher foods. --BigFishy 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tarinth 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for injokes and slang of minor importance. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 17:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, never heard of this in my life, it's clearly against WP:NEO. IZAK 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've expanded the article and have provided a number of references. House of Scandal 09:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To Wiktionary, once sourced. I've certainly heard it, and probably even used it, but I see no encyclopedic potential. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to once again agree with Mer-C Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Davidpdx 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kchase T 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The article now does more than define the term like Wiktionary would do. The current article puts the term in context as a meme in modern society.  I think that the term has been used both by Jewish people and racists is of interest. Thanks for relisting it so people have a chance to view the revision. House of Scandal 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NEO. Why on earth was this relisted, BTW?--Nydas (Talk) 09:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because all the !votes before HouseOfScandal's above were also before this expansion of the article.--Kchase T 10:04, 28 December 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.