Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-upper

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 but redirect to one-upmanship. Sandstein (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-upper

One-upper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

• Delete One-upper is a stubby neologism. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

quote from article: "He/She will devote whatever time and/or resources necessary to barely surpass your ability in the aforementioned skill or talent. If the "One-upper" tries to surpass your newfound skill or talent and fails your skill or talent then becomes instantly [Gay]"

• Delete. WP:NEO, might have a place in Wiktionary, but not in WP. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It has potential please keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnurr (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but redirect to one-upmanship, the established term from which this slang derives. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as noted above. Renee (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested, although the other article is only a little more solid.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to one-upmanship. No encyclopedic content to preserve. — Athaenara ✉ 07:43, 12 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.