Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troublefooling


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Troublefooling
Malformed nomination. Completing listing now. Original nominator was User:Jaberwocky6669. Suspect the reason for deletion was dicdef, neologism. Note: technical nomination only. No vote from me. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to DELETE because of neologism. I originially said because of original research but that is wrong. Jaberwocky6669 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what is up with this one entry! Jaberwocky6669 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN neologism --Deville (Talk) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not merely a neologism, but a badly-written, self-contradictory article. --die Baumfabrik 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, let me understand this. First, Jaber thought it was non-original. He/she proved him/her-self wrong on that point, and Devill had to rescue him/her by inventing another excuse to stick to the Delete recommendation. Neologism? As in Savage_Love, Metrosexual, Bling, Whale_tail, and innumerable others? These were all "neo" words before attaining mainstream. The fact that they are all allowed to live on wikipedia sugggests that "neologism" is a recently invented excuse for petty hackery. The Delete recommendation was made and approved in bad faith, and I am very curious as to the real reason: because you didn't come up with it first? And, Baumfabrik, your recommendation would have credibility if you could simply point out the "self-contradiction" you observed. iyaburo


 * 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.