Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wob

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Wob
Neologism. You (Talk) 22:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.If it's going to catch on, it's good sense to keep the page, keep the history.
 * Delete. Damn good neologism, there. Probably will catch on and actually deserve an article someday. -- BD2412 talk 22:26, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. You gotta give your neologisms a little more time to simmer before you decide they're encyclopedic. That slashdot comment was from this morning! Donutz 22:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promo for some internet neologism that has nothing to do with real Wobs. Kaibabsquirrel 22:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hypermegaultraneologism. One hour and 52 minutes has got to be some kind of record. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  23:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary. Being from the future, I must point out that just because a neologism is new doesn't mean that it won't last. Seeing as the IWW were actually 'Wobblies', I don't see how this term infringes on the context of that article. Likewise, since many, many, many Workers of the World are now International, who better to make up a wob than Wobblies? Let's save ourselves the irony of a wob action in response to an insensitive deletion of such a fine young term. Let's just agree that this is not for the encyclopedia, but should be immortallized in the Wiktionary. Being from the future, I can tell you in confidence that this is where it's going to end up anyway.ur-ahem 23:35, 21 Jun 2005(UTC)
 * Delete wikiwikineologism. -Splash 01:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Its useful and interesting. So what if it's from this morning? New terms have to be formed sometime and this one is surprisingly appropriate. -Jashmenn
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Great word, bad article. DicDef, Original Research, Not Significant. akaDruid 12:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until actually in use. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. --Angr/undefined 09:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely the author of the article can claim it was deleted by a wob! -- BD2412 talk 09:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a catchy word and surely will catch on.
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.