Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netrepreneur


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Apologies to the new users, but we are a bit wary of people who show up only for an AfD, maybe edit an article or two, and then leave. I hope you guys will stay on and help out with the other 936,000+ articles we have. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Netrepreneur
Neologism created by non-notable website/forum --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine, a unique term for budding webmasters! &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 86.128.240.163 (talk &bull; contribs) 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; the term, silly though it may be, gets a lot of google hits and seems somewhat widespread. I'm not sure which way to swing, so I'll pass on this one. &mdash; RJH 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; There are enough buzzwords in this industry.

But this term is definitely already in use and deserves an entry. I can see why, as there is a need for a word for this, anyway, and this one doesn't sound bad.
 * Keep it &mdash; I do not know about the 'jibber' website, so I will not comment on this term's origins.


 * Keep it &mdash; A Google search gives that this name is used quite a bit. &mdash; SimonKoldyk


 * Keep it &mdash; There is no reason for deletion, the term is well-known on the internet, the writer of this piece just has a starting forum about it, that can't be a reason for deletion. So before you want to delete something atleast check google. Assadar


 * comment - surely this is a case for Wiktionary? Ianb 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no verifiability. Stifle 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Stifle, what about it being in a Salon article ? Simonkoldyk 22:18, 22 January 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.