Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalisticity

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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalisticity

Delete. Original research. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, heavily POV. --Bachrach44 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No other references/information outside this entry.
• Delete crap neologism. SM247 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but mind the NPA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SM247 seems to be referring to the neologism and not the creator of the article, therefore there is no P at which a Personal Attack could be directed. Peyna 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Correct. I believe crap is an excellent universal word of a derisory nature and in this case was clearly directed at what is obviously a coined phrase of no common usage or notability. If I had said 'crap editor' (which I certainly do not mean), you were indeed correct to remind me. SM247 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If user x writes an article and user y calls it "crap", it is most certainly a personal attack. Why don't we err on the side of civility, please? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, I disagree with you here, Russian. I don't think you're a bad person, so if you wrote a bad article, I would easily be able to call it crap without calling you crap. I call articles garbage in AfD discussions frequently, but it's because I think the article- not the person(s) who wrote/edited it- is of little value. -- Kicking222 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kicking222. Excellent editors are capable of making crap edits. Me. For example. -- GWO
          • If user X is offended at user Y calling user X's article "crap," then user X needs to read WP:OWN. Plus, WP:NPA pretty clearly explains what is and isn't a personal attack, and this was nowhere near that. Peyna 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NEO. RobLinwood 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism Masterpjz9 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No references. Reads like original research. Tachyon01 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like nonsense to me.Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Guinnog 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deletisticity savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Deville (Talk) 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above redfox 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. Ace of Sevens 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very POV neologism, no sources. WP:SNOW? Grandmasterka 04:16, 8 June 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.