Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobacherie

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Three of the keep votes are counted as one due to possiblity of sockpuppets. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobacherie
Text says "Some people think it was invented by British mentalist, Derren Brown"... Some people? Who? I suspect original research. --Neigel von Teighen 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Wow, we've reached a Google singularity &mdash; exactly one hit. android&harr;talk 23:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, a Googlewhackblatt! Delete before we contaminate this rare specimen with additional Google. Meelar (talk) 01:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this neologism. And as an amateur magician, I can tell with sufficient certainty that mentalists have better things to do than make up words. Mgm|(talk) 08:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, what they said. -- Infrogmation 01:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. -- Dcfleck 14:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism --Wtshymanski 04:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete imaginary word. — Sesel wa  10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is not an imaginary word or a spoof. The Wikipedia entry clearly charts the etymology of the term - Mr Twain 01:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This has to be kept. Simply because of the above comment by Mr Twain.  It is true, cynics amongst you. - Simplicitymatures 10.30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first and only edit. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is a real word and should thus be given the appropriate status. Everyone now accepts the meaning of quark; this is the same, just give it time.- TediousPhoenix 10:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first and only edit. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, because i say so :) this word does have a real meaning!- Terrorvicky 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first and only edit. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's clearly a bit of nonsense. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel - on what grounds do you base your assumption that it's "clearly" a bit of "nonsense" - when the etymology described in the entry suggests otherwise? You appear to be employing the "clarity" that comes from a lack of knowledge of the term under discussion, or it's localised usage within its originating subculture. Mr Twain 11:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you mean: &ldquo;The origin of the word is unknown&rdquo;? In any case, etymologies prove nothing; it's very easy to create a word and give it an etymology, and false etymologies are common (the Romans produced hundreds of them). Incidentally, you're not signed in, so it's not ceratin that you're the person you're signing as.  Also, it looks very much as though you've created three accounts in order to vote for this; it should be easy enough to establish by checking the IP addresses.  Would you care to confess now, and get it off your chest?  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But the etymology of the word in this instance is entirely genuine - a product of a particular subculture and validated by its use within that subculture. I can frankly find no reason why anyone would wish to contribute a "fake" entry, but perhaps that's because I'm personally not predisposed to prankery. By all means - go ahead and check the IP addresses of the other users voting.  You will find that they are separate people.  For a second time - you appear to be jumping to a conclusion based on a value judgement rather than the evidence presented.  This is disappointing given the statements in your profile about your personal policy towards the aggressive and random deletion of topics that exist outside the Wikipedia regular's immediate sphere of knowledge. Mr Twain 12:13, 5 Apr 2005 (BST)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.