Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicle dweller


 * 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   Snow keep. It's clear that while WP:NOT exists, there's evidence that the article can be expanded as Altamel said and as Andrew said it's not a new word and not a dictionary entry, which places it outside the NOT#DICT scope. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle dweller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism- yes, its been used a few times, but alas, that's true of all neologisms, WP:NOT though. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic's title is not a new word; it's a phrase composed of quite standard words.  The page looks nothing like a dictionary entry - no focus on a particular word; no etymology; no grammar;  no usage.  Andrew (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not just a neologism, it's a phenomenon that has been covered in depth by multiple U.S. news sources. See articles by Businessweek, The New York Times, and TIME Magazine. Since this article can be expanded beyond just a dictionary definition, I !vote keep. Altamel (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate between Vandwelling and Homelessness, either of which might be referred to in some instances with this name. Selectively merge content – at least the sources – as necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart.  This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled.   Ravenswing   09:11, 18 September 2014 (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.