Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jossed


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossed
Nelogoism that isn't verified by anything reliable. Links down at the bottom are all fan-created info (such as user-submitted terms to UrbanDictionary, or guides to that BBC link). I did a quick Google search: out of 4,000 hits, all of them link to fanfiction sites or user-created info, none of which can be used under WP:RS. Hbdragon88 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Otto4711 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, very weak transwiki WP:NEO. If there are some WP:RS, transwiki it to Wiktionary. mrholybrain 's talk 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the nom's reasoning (and per my prod that said basically the same thing). Just for the record, the BBC link is H2G2, a site somewhere between Wikipedia and Everything2. It's moderated but not edited, and it's not a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think the nominator is right that there aren't any reliable sources. James086 Talk  02:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Obviously notable and well verified. Satisfies WP:N, WP:RS;; and WP:V. Inkpaduta 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be too obvious to me. This is someone's personal website. This is UrbanDictionary, a (rather infamous) user-submitted site, which doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. This is H2G2, which I've already mentioned.
 * So, um. Where's the obvious notability and verification? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NEO. The term in question is not popular to the general population.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. A personal website, H2G2 and urban dictionary (which anyone can edit- tut tut) do not make reliable sources. WjBscribe 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the sources are naturally fan created since fans are the only experts about fandom. The terms in fandom glossaries are peer reviewed by other fans which means it is a reliable source for fandom. Give me time and I may be able to find a printed source, but it will only be repeating the definition readily available on numerous websites. The word requires more than just a dictionary definition because its usage and the variation that arises from its usage is more complex than a simple dictionary entry would cover.Agrestis 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologiam unless reliable sources can be found. Nuttah68 10:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a regional neologism. Lankiveil 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete Fails Wikipedia is not a directory. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Fan-created definitions are hard to verify in print sources because they're used by fans, generally in online communities. That doesn't mean that they're pointless or not worth listing; Jossed is a valid and oft-used term in fandom discussion, and the article is accurate as to usage and source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.81.73 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Fan fiction terminology. The term exists, but I do not think that it is notable enough to have its own article.  The three sentences on the Fan fiction terminology page are enough.--FreeKresge 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from that (terrible) article for the same reason I !voted for deletion here: no reliable sources exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 15 February 2007 (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.