Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobosexual (2nd nomination)

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. Spellcast (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hobosexual

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

Contested prod. Article is about a neologism, with no references for its currency. nneonneo ^talk 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an unsourced neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently sourced neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (By the way, the version of this article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobosexual in 2006 appears to have been sufficiently different from this version that this article is not eligible for speedy deletion.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable neologism.--Berig (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism with no apparent source. Connorflanagan (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete because it is a recreation of deleted material through previous AfD. Dekisugi (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• No it's not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/merge as the concept is notable and we have articles on related topics such as ragamuffin. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The second bit of your argument is addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I recommend that you try adding this neoligism to urbandictionary.com. (Community editor (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

You are missing my point. Since we have at least one other article on the general topic of people who wear shabby clothing then a merger of this material would be sensible. There are other well-established words of this sort, such as tatterdemalion and so a simple move might suffice. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism, and salt as a re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article is neologism with unverified origin that appears to be in minimal usage. (Community editor (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
• Delete Neologism with no reliable sources to back it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism with no readily available sources to assert notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Readily available" is not a requirement in any encyclopedia that I know of. Stalinwasmydad (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Colonel Warden; article has reliable primary source, and Google validates claims of currency. Stalinwasmydad (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Appears to be a non-notable neologism. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ah, I missed WP:NEO articles. Neologisms need independent sources indicating common usage, which this does not have.-- danntm ^T _C 22:07, 5 May 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.