Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neg (pick up)


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Neg (pick up)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a minimally notable neologism. Sources provided to attest to it's use but beyond the definition, what more would we be able to say on this topic? I think this dictionary-definition would be much happier if we released it back into Wiktionary, it's natural environment. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to an appropriate article that can cover this well-known and well-attested concept, probably Seduction community. More examples of mainstream sources that attest to notability of "the neg":     --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikitionary. Delete. Unlikely to expand beyond a dicdef.  Could also be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where.  I guess the aforementioned Seduction community target is alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Wiktionary already includes this definition of neg. Gobōnobō  + c 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that it was already on Wiktionary. I thought I looked there, but I guess not.  In that case, deletion does seem like the obvious choice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Several cites in article to coverage of this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gobōnobō  as WP:NOTDICDEF. "Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" is not relevant when it is just a definition of a word. --Bejnar (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (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.