Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizardpunk

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lizardpunk

• A new genre, defined by a story nobody's heard of that just came out? I smell vanity. A quick google reveals the utter newness of this term. Delete Friday 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete craze-brained nnneologism that doesn't even have anything to describe yet! -Splash 01:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• My college professor at CSUF was talkin about this story. I can't vote either way. When does something new become something that shouldn't be deleted. It's a gray area. -Frozentoast
• Delete, neologism. --bainer (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism (and multiplication of genres without distinctions), although I think lizards look really cute with mohawks. Geogre 15:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Information is information; the topic itself is encyclopedic and, except for the last paragraph, the article is well-done. Kurt Weber 18:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism created a month ago, in reference to a single novel. A grand total of 5 Google hits, with at most one not being a user name. --Icelight 00:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one novel doesn't define a genre.Decapod73 08:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original work/not notable - Tεxτurε 16:57, 3 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.