Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotgun reporting


 * 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. Dakota 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shotgun reporting
This term appears to violate WP:NEO and WP:NOR. I originally nominated this for a prod back on Aug 29 because the only usage of this phrase in relation to spam that showed up on Google was this wikipedia. The prod was contested with a claim that this term was used mostly in blogs. On Aug 30, suddenly five mentions of this phrase appeared on various blogs via google, all from "different" people. Since then, there have been zero *new* usages of this phrase. Of the five usages, all of the usages appear to be somewhat contrived and several are of the form "Is this a case of shotgun reporting?" where others answered "no". None of these five usages of the phrase actually define what it means, let alone give a definition that matches what is in the article. Wrs1864 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism that has not yet garnered widespread usage, and thus cannot be cited to credible, third-party sources as required by WP:Verify. -- Satori Son 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this article for this AfD was created at the same time and by the same person as the article in the related AfD Articles for deletion/TattleMail. The TattleMail article contains one of the few references to the Shotgun reporting article. Wrs1864 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or possible Merge, per nom, I would like to merge it but I have no clue as to where.-- †hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Stopping e-mail abuse. &#8213; blue-kun 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NEO. EVula 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Moondyne 05:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a real phrase or idiom. Bejnar 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This is a neologism that hasn't been verified. J I P  | Talk 06:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above. Seems to be more of a protologism than a neologism, and clearly fails WP:NEO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. James68 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks adequate references to satisfy WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Anomo 09:12, 29 October 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.