Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehuggers

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 speedy-deleted as recreated content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger for the last decision. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planehuggers

This article was speedily deleted twice, and was then reposted yet again. I've changed the re-nomination to a AfD because I think that it's worth discussing. I do not know what the original reasons given for the speedy nomination were, but my guess is that it's because it's a neologism. Icarus 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into another article about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as the term gets 499 google hits. Not enough for a separate article, in my opinion, but enough for a brief mention in another article. I'm not familiar enough with what articles exist to suggest which one, beyond the obvious 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Icarus 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. I hesitate to say merge first, because the POV shouldn't accompany the term if it migrates somewhere. It is very obviously a neologism. Marskell 07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect as twice-deleted neologism and conspiracycruft. Feezo (Talk) 08:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's better off at Urban Dictionary. --BillC 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "CSD G4 - copies of previously deleted material", protect, and take some sort of action against RayAntoky. Actually, this is the fourth repost; "Planehugger" was deleted March 24, March 31, and April 3. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Planehugger Esquizombi 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Maybe worth mentioning in the context of 9-11 conspiracies, but doesn't merit an article. I wouldn't object to deletion though. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 3 April 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.