Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censuswhack

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. Note that the BBC article used the term, it wasn't about the term (see WP:NEO). Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censuswhack

Neologism taken from a message board. Very very few Google hits. Woohookitty^(meow) 08:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Were it not for the BBC article, I'd agree with nom. Press coverage tends to establish notability --Roninbk 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Every data source or web site with search functionality can become the subject of a whack, but this is not worth an extra article. --DrTorstenHenning 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the press writes about neologisms sometimes, that doesn't make them not neologisms. Recury 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not as notable as Googlewhacking, but still worth noting.

Category:Greek magazines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) .

• Delete - simply not widely used enough to merit an article. BlueValour 23:02, 23 September 2006 (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.