Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-ninja


 * 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   procedural close as keep. During the pendency of this discussion, the page was merged into schools of Ninjutsu. Being a pirate, not a ninja, I have no competence to judge the substantive merits of dab's recent edits to that page, other than to observe that they appear reasonably plausible. But this page now being a redirect means that Redirects for Discussion, not Articles for Deletion, would have jurisdiction over whether it belongs or not, since all the AfD notice does now is prevent the redirect from operating. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo-ninja

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neo-ninja is, you guessed it, a neologism. It has zeron hits in google scholar and 8 hits in google books. At least 3 of those books actually cites WP as the source for its inclusion in their book. The term is found on discussion forums and the odd magazine, but not a word in common usage in reliable sources. There have been attempts to merge the article, but some have resisted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into schools of Ninjutsu. Seriously, the merge tag was already there before you submitted this AfD, you could just have done the honours. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, a merge was proposed back in January and that merger tag was removed until you re-added it. The problem is that "neo-ninja" is still a neologism and just burying it in another article doesn't change that. In fact, it gives it some sort of legitimacy. As I pointed out in the nom, others have already used WP as a source for it in their books. A simple re-direct without a merger might be ok, but the term is simply made up and not in wide use by reliable sources. Keeping it on here just promotes its use. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (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.