Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IAALBOAHL

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 of the debate was delete. -- Drini 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAALBOAHL

Definitely a neologism, if not a protologism. Used nowhere save for the incident on the mailing list, and appears nowhere else on the web according to Google. Dare I say it, WP-cruft? Confusing Manifestation 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure if ASR applies, since it isn't so much a problem of linking to non-article pages as being something insignificant about WP itself. After all, Wikipedia manages to survive without self-reference. Confusing Manifestation 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NFT not for things make up on wikipedia one day...or something. Metros232 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "..presumably.." a one-off proto/neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Only hits on Google are from Wikipedia. IANAL, on the other hand, does appear to exist. Aplomado ^talk 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even within the context of Wikipedia self-reference, totally non-notable. Fan1967 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 23:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary but making an article on an acronym from a single post is ridiculous. Cedars 03:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• New and Improved Super-Strong Keep. As Harrison Ford said, notability is bunk. Or something like that. In any case, it is not self-referential because it refers to an incident on the mailing list, not the project proper. Basically I think notability is the only deletion argument here. I agree that it is not a very notable neologism, if you accept notability as deletion criteria. But come on people, USENET acronyms have their own articles, we should lower the bars a little for our own children ;) Loom91 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Go back and read WP:ASR again. For WP we should raise the bar, way, way up. People come to Wikipedia for real information, not something that some person said once on a Wikipedia message board. Fan1967 14:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, self reference, and finally, per WP:First, kill all the lawyers (which, if it doesn't exist, should...) AnonEMouse 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when you're an Internet phenomenon in your own right. Lord Bob 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Please people, this is NOT a self-reference. Please actually read the article WP:ASR. It says that articles should not refer to the Wikipedia website OUTSIDE of the context of the article. There is no rule that prevents an article from even mentioning wikipedia even if that is in the context of the article, otherwise we would have to delete Wikipedia. The ASR page says "If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia". The article is not self-referential, please think about the matter before claiming it is. Loom91 07:43, 16 May 2006 (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.