Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/FLIRG

=Closing administrator's remarks= '''If you choose to add comments to this page, please do so in a separate section below. Do not break-up my comments here.'''

Raw count analysis

 * Delete
 * 1) Diagonalfish (1 edit)
 * 2) Themfromspace
 * 3) Edison
 * 4) Edward321
 * 5) OneCyclone
 * 6) William Allen Simpson (3 edits)
 * 7) Rhrad (2 edits)
 * 8) Erik the Red 2
 * SMP0328. (6 edits)
 * — 208.106.59.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — 198.6.216.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep
 * 1) username (x edits)
 * 2) Lizabeth83 (3 edits) {also says rename}
 * 3) Dems on the move (2 edits) -- for the record, my vote was a "weak keep" Dems on the move (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * — 98.215.98.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — 128.176.231.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — 71.131.26.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — 70.153.238.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Non-Participatory
 * SineBot (5 edits) (signing unsigned comments)

Valid delete arguments

 * Neologism WP:NEO
 * Non-notable coined acronym
 * No apparent widespread use
 * disagreement about meaning of term
 * fails WP:V
 * no WP:RS
 * flash-in-the-pan slang

Discounted delete arguments

 * from last night's Saturday Night Live.
 * no need for a separate article
 * no brainer - just not notable
 * probably wrong word, funny/vulgar

Valid keep arguments

 * notable term used during a highly publicized event dealing with a presidential election
 * WP:NEO does not apply; article gives more than definition/contains encyclopedic content

Discounted keep arguments

 * Memorializing moment preexisting term reaches critical mass is a useful and valid entry
 * quickly going viral and is very notable
 * assume bad faith on part of deletionists
 * we need it for the purpose and existence of Wikipedia

Summary
This term is a neologism, and it is unclear if the recent use is even the same term as the previous use on SNL. We do not have reliable sources to verify the content of the article, including the spelling of the term itself. Closing decision is therefore delete.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

=Other editors comments= There needs to be some type of entry on this word. I didn't know what it meant. I googled it in search of an answer. This entry was the best answer I could find. There are Americans who hear political discourse, even if it is on SNL, and want to know what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.96.202 (talk) 2008-09-17 01:47:30 (UTC)


 * I don't believe instant messaging acronyms, such as FLIRG, count as "political discourse." SMP0328. (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could preserve the content of the page at the time it was deleted (minus the AfD template) in this talk page? Dems on the move (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that undermine the act of deleting the article? SMP0328. (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It would Dems on the move (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Not be in the article space, meaning it is not recognized as an encyclopedic entry
 * 2) Not be subject to continuous improvement. It would be preserved as a reference.


 * Shadav has created a new Talk:Neurotically Yours calling for undeletion. Should that new talk page be deleted? SMP0328. (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You lost me. What does one have to do with the other? Dems on the move (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to keep the article to work on it, they should ask the closing admin to userfy it for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That Talk page has been speedily deleted. SMP0328. (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)