Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thread hijacking


 * 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. StarM 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thread hijacking

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced and unreferenced. Lacks any notability whatsoever. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. It just seems like a neologism. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete What the article is talking about isn't new (or particularly notable), but the term is. WP:NEO.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Threadjacking has already been prodded to death twice, and this article may fall under WP:NEOLOGISM. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this could possibly be a neologism. Still, it amounts to nothing more than a dictionary definition and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Without references we can't transwiki it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot but agree with the above comments. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete im in ur thread jacking your article. No, seriously, Christ. JuJube (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: definitely not neologism, it is a common jargon term. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (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.