Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrogrouch

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retrogrouch

Neologism/Protologism describing a type of biker. A google search brings up no reliable sources, mostly forum posts and people calling themselves (or others) retrogrouches. Daniel Olsen 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. The term is almost always applied to Grant Peterson, an extremely well-known (in bike circles) frame builder with a curmudgeonly attitude towards technology. Retrogrouch Grant gets me a couple hundred unique ghits, but many irrelevant. People who appreciate top-notch bikes will know the term, but it's not much more than an in-joke. I'm surprised that Grant doesn't have an article here; I'll try to get to that sometime... bikeable (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism at worst, dicdef at best. Agent 86 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. George J. Bendo 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No delete. Google brings up LOTS of posts, so, lots of people are using the term, and, by definition, users are reliable for dicdef's. Some urls are almost 10 years old. My personal recollection is from the 80s, but I have to dig up some old bicycling magazines to proove this. So, this is not a neologism, the page is accurate; the only debate is shold this be moved to a dictionary page.

here are two citations suggesting that retrogrouch is used outside of bike circles https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908&L=typo-l&T=0&P=28924 http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2002-January/035803.html

The first url uses "retrogrouch" in a non bicycle contex, "As a long-time retrogrouch who thinks HTML has fallen into"

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.