Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidn

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidn

• Delete. Non-notable and vanity vulgarity/slang. It claims that the slang has "spread across the island". However, no source is provided. --*drew 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not Delete : perfectly alright. nothing wrong with it. don't see why it has to be deleted. Innovation rules this modern world now and this creation should be gladly accepted instead of getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)
  • Not Delete : KEEP THIS HERE WIKI!!! we need more innovative minds in this world and if you delete this, you're gonna destroy innovative minds! In fact, many schools use it, and yeah, its common among teens in certain places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) (same contributor as previous vote)
    • Okay I changed my mind. We can have this on our own homepages. Delete. - 202.156.6.59 20:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Created by the same class as the 2L_2005 article. Those guys keep messing up AfD's, too. --JoanneB 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not Delete It is a perfectly fine word, and it is used commonly as a slang. Wikipedia requires us to post anything, any little bit of info in the world, and here we are doing a SERVICE for you guys and yet you are complaining. I have heard my children using it in front of me, and it seems to be a pretty useful word. - Bob Koh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, WP:DOESNOT require you to "post anything", this is not an indiscriminant collection of (useless) information. Also, innovative minds are not at risk. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. (Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, wouldn't take this word because it isn't an attested word.) The anonymous contributors above also, quite ironically, demonstrate that this article violates our Wikipedia:no original research policy as well. Just as with Caughtem (AfD discussion) and Gotem(speech) (AfD discussion) a group of schoolchildren has aimed their invented word at the dictionary and missed, hitting the encyclopaedia instead. Claims that the word is in widespread use are not supported by any evidence, and would only have bearing upon the admission of the word to the dictionary, not to the encyclopaedia, in any case. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not intended to be a plaything of pesky schoolkids. Bwithh 02:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more cruft from the Raffles Institution. MCB 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense, not NPOV, not notable, and getting really close to spam from Raffles' students! bjelleklang 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Well, I laughed at the foreign language section, preserve that in BJAODN; delete the rest. (Bloody bourgeois these Raffles Institution students can be). -- Natalinasmpf 14:20, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.