Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weir Word


 * 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   Transwiki. Transwiki  MBisanz  talk 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Weir Word

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

Term in question is notable only to a very small group of people, fails WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and that is exactly what this term is all about. Even the refs provided don't establish notability... they took me a long time to find (making Verifiability a tough argument), but once I did, it simply proved my point, that even within the United States Marine Corps, the term has little notability, importance, or usage. There is no real third-party source for the etymology of the term either, and Wiktionary would be a better place for this. Only Google hit is WP itslef. Argyll (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am having a devil of a time trying to locate the references. The online archive of Leatherneck does not seem to have an article listed of the title in the references.  Where did you locate these sources?  --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to find them myself a while ago, when I first PRODded the page. The local base library did not have copies dating so far back, and like you say, there are no online sources. I'll also note that in my years in the military, I've never heard this term aside from this article. spǝǝp  spɹoʍ  3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq  06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary: despite the difficulty in verification, I think that this term is not notable enough for Wikipedia, but I think it would make a fine candidate for Wiktionary under WP:NOTDICDEF. spǝǝp  spɹoʍ  3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq  06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and do not move to Wiktionary. Did you read this article?  It's an attack page.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary if they want it, per nom. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2009 (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.