Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadgetbahn

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 transwiki. Daniel 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gadgetbahn

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

This fails on two counts: first, it is a neologism; second it is a dictionary definition. I tried to find credible references for it, but found only a few newspaper editorials of an obviously polemical kind, nothing we could use for an authoritative definition. It is not so widespread as to be able to define it form a consensus of common usage, either. Only a few hundred Googles, of which Wikipedia is the top one (always a bad sign). Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It is a pejorative neologism that has gained reasonably broad use, but we could never write an encyclopedia article about it.--Yannick 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. A dictionary definition. It appear to have been around since 2004 and to have gained some usage. --Malcolmxl5 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A dicdef is an article about a word, this article (now) covers the word's usage making it encyclopedic. Also although the term is a neologism, that is not necessarily grounds for deletion. To be a reason for deletion, the coverage on WP would have to be the most reliable source using the term, and there are (now) sufficient references to reliable published sources using the term to make that point moot. Finally, I also found a synonymous term "gadget transit" which is now redirected to this article. No objection to transcluding the definition part to Wiktionary. Dhaluza 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. NY Press is not exactly a big time source. I like it, but it's afree weekely. Could become an article with enough references. Bearian 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Alameda Sun and Rail Professional too. It only matters that these secondary sources are more reliable than WP. Dhaluza 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, or "transwiki" if you would like, but a dictionary definition belongs elsewhere. Burntsauce 17:21, 26 July 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.