Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admin Nazi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 this article has committed suicide in the Führerbunker. The Allies are victorious. Krimpet (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Nazi

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

Seems to be a neologism (see WP:NEO) at best to me. I speedied, but was on the fence about it. Per editor's concerns, I've posted for a consensus. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Google (~1700 hits) shows that the term is in use, but without secondary sources there's no article here, just a dicdef. Deor 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article could be used as a textbook example of what WP:NEO says is not an appropriate article. Mwelch 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Eddie.willers 02:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, and dictionary definition at best. Wiktionary already covers this sense anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I originally nominated the article for Speedy deletion. My reasons for that were - at first reading the page appeared to be written by someone who had a falling out with a WP admin. However I no longer belive that. I still however believe the article should be deleted as per: WP:NEO. -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Would belong at Wiktionary, but I'm not even sure the term is in common use outside a limited section of the population (and those of us in support are more likely to reference BOFH anyway!). Orderinchaos 11:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete More of a protologism than a neologism, and might not even be enough for Wiktionary. Certainly no notable reliable sources are discussing the term directly as far as I can tell. --Charlene 10:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a neologism rather than a protologism (see reference to usage on Usenet: searching www for the term brings up many more examples of its usage). However I've looked for secondary sources and not been able to find any so I'm happy for this article to be deleted according to WP:NEO unless anybody else comes up with one (and I've made an entry in Wiktionary instead, as suggested). --John Stumbles 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (original author/creator of article)
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.