Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasted username


 * 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. North America1000 13:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wasted username

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term "Wasted username" lacks notability. The only sources given are a Portuguese wiki and Urban Dictionary, neither of which is reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasons mentioned above. References contain NO reliability. Will211 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no opinion on notability either way as of yet, but I don't think that it's wise to have a screengrab of an actual user account from another website and label it as a "wasted username", especially since the article asserts that this is a derogatory term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism. No coverage about the term itself in WP:RSs.  Heck, there's hardly even any use of the term in reliable sources.  --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 06:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons above. sixty nine   • speak up •  06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: @ User:Beemer69 Way to insult a user's hard work! The content of the article is all factual. Saying that it's pure nonsense is pure nonsense. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's pure nonsense.I couldn't corroborate the notability of the topic, but after it was explained I thought it was plausible. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As I wrote when I PRODded the article, "Other than use of the term, I don't see substantial discussion about it on the Web." —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Little use, not notable, no reliable sources. TheOverflow (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps although I would also suggest drafting and userfying later if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  00:19, 17 February 2016 (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.