Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty pint

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 Nakon 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty pint

Dirty pint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Completely uncited, probably original research, most likely a neologism. Would speedy but there's really no good category for this sort of thing. Tan | 39 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable neologism. Soxred93 | talk bot 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced OR, neologism, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's a term I've heard with some frequency in the UK. If you google the term, you get numerous references to drinking games, party activities, and youtube videos all referring to the same thing as the article. On the other hand, I under stand that wikipedia is not a dictionary. But either way, it's a fairly pervasive term. JEB90 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, I have heard it many times (also in the UK) but to be honest without independent reliable sources it's not really encyclopedic, and probably can stay on urbandictionary. ~ mazca talk 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. G-news doesn't find any use of it in the news, so no notability above neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • True, but a number of those aren't in reference to what the article is describing. There are only eight total hits after all; maybe a couple of them are on-topic, but in my opinion, it's not enough to confirm widespread use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't know what lives other wikipedians inhabit but surely this term is notable. Maybe its more systemic bias. I wouldn't say just because it belongs on urban dictionary just because its a horrible 21st birthday thing. Francium12 (talk) 21:56, 19 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.