Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian


 * 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. Canderson7 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Trustafarian
Non encyclopedic, divisive attack singling out people perceived derogatively for their a) race b) faith c) economic state - can it sink any lower? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is it your claim that the article constitutes an attack or documents an existing attack? I have (very rarely) heard the term used in real life as a slur. I've never had a strong opinion how/if slurs should be covered in the encyclopedia. --Improv 02:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've never heard the term until I read it here. For all I know, it was invented here as a means of slighting people.  But even if it is in use, it's hardly encyclopedic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete dictdef of neologism. It exists, but should be somewhere else. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. And "Thou shalt not covet."  Ruby 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism, unencyclopedic. This kind of information is definitely not for Wikipedia. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, definition was already transwikied to Wiktionary: wiktionary:transwiki:Trustafarian. I presume it has been recreated. and deleted in April . - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - See these well sourced usages . Terms/phenomena that "single people out" are not necessarily unencyclopedic. If that were the case, we would have a whole lot of articles to delete... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.1.103 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:35, January 30, 2006.


 * 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.