Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorudo

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. BLACKKITE 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorudo

Sorudo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This nom is in behalf of User:CultureDrone, per a request here. The article lacks reliable sources, and it fails WP:DICDEF. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete: A neologism and a self-defined term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:NFT VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Visa vi the above policies are not in effect just because nongamers haven't heard of the term, a term going for over 5 years is hardly recently coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note 1. the term is Vis-à-vis, 2. Nongamers not knowing what the term means doesn't negate policies, 3. you used the term incorrectly anyway. Also, this comment is from the creator of the article. JuJube (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Negates NEO and NFT RavenPurity (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, DICDEF states that the Noob article should be deleted as well, as it provides a definition, yet do I see a deleted Noob article? No I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Newbie has enough sources to make it not a dicdef. And by your definition, any random gamer jackass who makes up a term merits a Wikipedia entry because, after all, non-gamers don't know what it means. JuJube (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
          • And by your logic, unless every single person in the world knows what something is, Wiki can't have an article on it, also, W:NPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPurity (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Pay attention, I'm not personally attacking anyone. Nor am I flinging straw men around. You're the one who gave the rationale that people not knowing what things are negates policy. Don't bother to reply to this. JuJube (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. 18 unique ghits, including several related to this article, but none which appear to contain this "derogatory term". Perhaps this term has been in existence for "over 5 years", but it doesn't appear that anybody's been using it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Who says five years isn't recent, given the history of the English language? Pagrashtak 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per all the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per all others. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:57, 11 January 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.