Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mailman syndrome

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. Luna Santin 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mailman syndrome

Mailman syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Completely original research. No sources. A mere 23 unique g-hits for this term, most of which have nothing to do with this article. IrishGuy ^talk 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original Research, completely unverifiable, could be a hoax. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism, something made up in school one day and possible attack page. Henning Makholm 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Smacks of complete bollocks -Markeer 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as made up. Most ghits pertain to dogs and mailmen...Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. SliceNYC 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete! It is not bolloks, nor is it an attack page. It is a term used to describe a very frequent occurence in today's society that should be recognized and addressed. Politicians are not the only ones who create language, and Ph. D's are not the only ones who should provide information to the world. Keep mailman syndrome alive on wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.220.166 (talk • contribs).

We know politicians aren't the only language creators and not only Ph. D's can provide knowledge. Wikipedia has many pages of cultural phenomena, inventions and the like created by people from all walks of life. However, we have policies, and a big one is verifiability. Articles must have valid, reliable sources to back them up, and this doesn't. The reason why Tesseran and I said Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary is that Urban Dictionary is a place to share terms even if they were of your own creation. Here, we only comment on established lexicon. Hope this helps you understand where we're coming from. SliceNYC 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Tesseran 03:51, 29 November 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.