Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockney 2

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mockney

Mockney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

unsourced, possible attack, possible OR Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See prior AfD results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockney

• Keep I had no clue what this term meant, but now I do. And even if my new understanding is slightly unsourced, I think it's better than what I knew before. (yeah, hopefully I'm not screwing anything up. And I don't know how to sign this.)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Mockney is a common term for mock-Cockney, as attributed by The Daily Telegraph[1], the London Review of Books (although the article online has expired)[2], the BBC [3], etc. 49,000 Ghits excluding Wikipedia and mirrors. It also appears to be a sociological phenomenon as well as an accent, so the topic is encyclopedic and not just a dicdef. --Charlene 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NEO. The Daily Telegraph ref link leads to an opinion section. Gelston 12:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as above. Isn't just a neologism, wide sociological interest. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, this term can, I think, be sourced. It has been used in numerous TV, radio and other media productions, satirising certain forms of music and fake culture, a bit like Plastic Paddy. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Plastic Paddy was deleted for the same reason as this article's current AfD. Gelston 13:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, we currently have a small but decent article on it. I got the capitalisation wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the lowercase version was deleted for the above reasons. I'm going to withdraw my vote though, but I still urge that more, reliable references are added to the article. The Daily Telegraph reference is an opinions piece and E2 is like Wikipedia, able to be editted by anyone. Gelston 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that better sourcing is needed. If it's still not improved in a month I will be advocating deletion. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I would prefer to see better sourcing, but the topic is clearly notable. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. -- Infrogmation 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Though sourced citations should be added in a references section. Smee 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Commonly used term worthy of an entry although more sources would be preferable. 13:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep 10 years ago it would have been a neologism but has become widespread now Croxley 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A fairly well-known word for a widespread phenomenum.GordyB 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article makes a salient point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.184.218 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - frequently used term, although in need of a cleanup. Laïka 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. fails notability--Sefringle 04:23, 22 March 2007 (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.