Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIAA whores


 * 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. Closing early due to the article creator agreement. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RIAA whores

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism that gets under 100 g-hits. Wikipedia is not a message board. BigDT 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - ugh, WP:NEO. Basically, the phenomenon probably exists, but without any throughout checking we can't really tell to what capacity this term is actually being used. In any case, I'd be ready to call this a POV fork with a problematic title - RIAA is already adequate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't delete - It's not under 100 g-hits, search for "RIAA whores" is 130 and "RIAA whore" is 86. If you want to merge or insert the entry into another one, fine, but the point is this specifically denotes people who are not direct RIAA employees but take public positions supporting theirs, especially when monetary exchange is later found to be involved.-- S.chock 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 28 distinct Google hits for "RIAA whore", 36 for "RIAA whores". Hum de dum (can't hum more because I'd probably be sued). Mostly random blog message board postings in both cases, it seems. And even if it were up to 130, we'd still consider it an indication of severe lack of use... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Do you know of any verifiable sources that discuss this term? Please read WP:NEO - Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms.  Unless there are actual sources of information that tell us about this term, it isn't really appropriate for an article.  Also, I'm sorry if my nomination wasn't clear - 100 isn't a magic number of g-hits that makes something notable - there is no such number.  I offered (what I thought was) the number of g-hits only as an evidence that the term is not in wide use.  --BigDT 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above; and I'm going to head a possible argument off at the pass here: Wikipedia is not censored (we already have whore, bitch, and a host of other fun words). If it was called RIAA suckup, it'd still be deleted. Veinor (talk to me) 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the article creator concedes this article might not be a good idea. Anybody else willing to close this? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Nonnotable neologism, lacks adequate references. Inkpaduta 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, NEO. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Or Rewrite The article is missing many verifiable sources. Lordofchaosiori 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. From looking over the Google hits, I'm very doubtful the term itself could ever be cited with reliable sources, barring unforeseen future use. thadius856talk 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverified and unverifiable in my opinion. - grubber 17:25, 10 February 2007 (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.