Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daybeer
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. May be appropriate after it has been studied and discussed by scholars, but at present it clearly runs afoul of the guideline on neologisms.--Kubigula (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Daybeer
Neologism (a few weeks old by its own admission); no sources, and I seriously doubt that any exist. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - can't find any reliable sources. Agree with Zetawoof that there probably aren't any considering how recently this was made up.--BelovedFreak 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pour it out No proof that this is a widely used term; even admits to being a WP:NEOlogism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable neologism, verging on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Razorflame (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete made-up? unsure. NN neologism? Certainly. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This term is currently being studied by Scholars at the University of Minnesota. I believe if you give it sometime there will be credible information and a wide list of references to go along with it. comment added by Founderdbc (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - funny, but nope--SevernSevern (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2008 (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.
