Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austinpowerism

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 delete. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austinpowerism

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

Delete as neologism. I found two Google results for Austinpowerism. It was apparently coined by Roger Ebert on November 15, but it doesn't appear to be used anywhere other than that one article and a blog. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Handschuh-talk to me 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the word is a neologism, but an apt one. Rick Norwood 14:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not the first place technique was used. No evidence this is a valid neologism rather than merely a "throw away'" term used once by a notable person. --Evb-wiki 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Evb-wiki. Austin Powers is hardly the first movie to do this. JuJube 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NEO - a reliable secondary source defines this term.---- 207.172.220.225 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How about a Redirect to Roger Ebert, since people are bound to look this up, it's nice to just redirect it. One can then edit the Roger Ebert page to include this. You can lock it if you want to prevent vandalism.--207.172.220.225 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete That's not how WP:NEO reliable sources requirement works. Someone has to write about the term and how it is used, not just use it/make it up. This term does not fit the bill. Trash it. i kan reed (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO - Not an inherently notable neologism.---- WaltCip (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non notable neologism. --- RiverHockey (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom...if there were more sources and uses of the word then it would be keepable, but there isn't Ctjf83 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The article does, however, follow the time-honored Wikipedian rule about working in a reference to "The Simpsons" Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impressive how Beowulf is already worked in. Kablammo (talk) 02:42, 17 November 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.