Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postromancy


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Postromancy
Neologism, vanity, original research. Contested prod. --  Merope  Talk 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced and does not seem notable. PJM 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure of WP:NEO.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you guys would want to delete this page. It's brillant and it also defines a term widely used on forums and other bulletien boards. While the term is rather new it is catching like wild fire. To attempt to put it out would be silly and absolutly pointless because there is not enough water to extinguish this flame. We need to embrace the future here at Wikipedia and expand our horizans. This piece has to do with the Internet and forums, an ever changing playground of knowledge that reaches ad infintium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicthaninja (talk • contribs)
 * Why not provide some reliable sources then? PJM 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous comment was moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Postromancy. -- Merope Talk 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we wait for this thread to grow into a beautiful flower? I say Delete, it's a weed. Danny Lilithborne 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. We have too many articles about internet forums already. Recury 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on thread necromancy. There's nothing worth merging from this article, because it is egregiously non-neutral on the subject of netiquette.  There's no point in a redirect, because this word doesn't exist at all, contrary to the claim made above.  It garners the magic zero Google results on all searches. Delete. Uncle G 19:29, 19 September 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.