Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juts


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Juts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism, which happens to be what Wikipedia is not for. -- Σ  talk  contribs  23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not what WP is for. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain and Expand. See examples of neologism with prominent placement in WP. (teh, et al.) --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathan Robinson is creator of the term and of the article. &mdash; RHaworth 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nathan Robinson is creator of the term and of the article."—correct. This is now clarified in the article as a disclaimer. --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter neologism. &mdash; RHaworth 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article may certainly be deleted, but trying to understand the inclusion of some neologism and not others. Also true that the term is most certainly not is widespread use, but exists in a small sector nonetheless. --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neologisms are definitely part of Wikipedia. However, they have to be supported by reliable sources, like teh is through scholarly work such as this. Moogwrench (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly delete - per WP:NOT, as in Wikipedia is not about collecting non-notable additions to the Internet slang-verse. Moogwrench (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly retain and expand - a neologism is not borne only of Internet slang. Shakespeare, Marlowe, and other great English writers coined phrases by accident. We see these creations almost daily as a result of the mass media's wide distribution of political rhetoric. As the term "juts" now carries a definite meaning by a greater and greater portion of the population, it would border on censorship to pretend as though knowledge of the neologism's origin and expansion weren't relevant. It would be arrogant. To those who wish this deleted, there had better be a reason better than "not what WP is for," as WP sources knowledge and ideas of which "juts" just so happens to be a part. Ttsilvester (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Ttsilvester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Excellent speech. -- Σ  talk  contribs  18:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources to support this article's existence, or to back up any of the assertions you just made? Moogwrench (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone else smelling a puppet? 94.8.98.105 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you mean. Look, the "urban dictionary" -- and I mean that in the generic sense (not the website) -- is full of terms not yet prolifically cited in "reliable sources." I could go either way with "juts," but it just seems odd that you would be so antagonistic toward a term that a small percentage of the population actually uses, as though your acceptance of the term rivals in relevance anyone else's. As I've said before, it's arrogant. You can't accept one neologism over another without providing a reason other than "not in reliable sources." In the twenty-first century, that's a cheap, and unreliable, argument. Ttsilvester (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contribute to "Urban Dictionary". It's like saying that Adolf Hitler took over the USSR and the reference is a Facebook post. Wikipedia is not for things you make up in one day. -- Σ  talk  contribs  19:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of treatment in reliable sources as required by WP:NEO. Hans Adler 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable (no reliable sources found). Jarkeld (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - "You can't accept one neologism over another without providing a reason other than 'not in reliable sources.'" Yes, we can. We delete multiple articles on all sorts of topics everyday for exactly that reason. Please read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. (As for words coined by the likes of Shakespeare, I think you'll find that there are lots of reliable sources that discuss them.) Lady  of  Shalott  00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete b/c no RS. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant third-party coverage to support assertion of notability. Neutralitytalk 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a search reveals nothing about the definition of this word as claimed in the article.  I suggest speeding as hoax.Curb Chain (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (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.