Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuppie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 KEEP. Speedy closed per WP:SNOW etc. Rich Farmbrough, 08:36 28 April 2007 (GMT). 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yuppie
A neologism with not one cited source and a stub to boot. Loodog 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Deletion would result in it's endless recreation in the same or worse state. It the term itself notable? I would say yes. It's already cross linked from around 200 other articles. What we really need to do is find a couple of decent secondary sources to use as references. Megapixie 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The term is very notable and very used; however, the article that got made for it isn't worthy of existence. If we could get TWO credible sources that resulted in more than a dictionary definition, I would vote stay.--Loodog 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Don't be a dick would seem to apply here. The term is not even arguably notable, does not fall under WP:NEO as it is in dozens of dictionaries, and you have provided no valid reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup, okay? --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:No personal attacks would seem to apply here. My edit was in good faith, the no source tags have been up since November of last year.--Loodog 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Loodog, I've cleaned it up a lot and added some reliable sources. How's that? Lewis Collard 05:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Excellent, this is decent article now. Good work.--Loodog 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Big smile Thanks a ton. ;D Lewis Collard 05:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:No personal attacks would seem to apply here. My edit was in good faith, the no source tags have been up since November of last year.--Loodog 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Don't be a dick would seem to apply here. The term is not even arguably notable, does not fall under WP:NEO as it is in dozens of dictionaries, and you have provided no valid reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup, okay? --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The term is very notable and very used; however, the article that got made for it isn't worthy of existence. If we could get TWO credible sources that resulted in more than a dictionary definition, I would vote stay.--Loodog 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup as per Megapixie. Lewis Collard 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup - this term is widely used; I mean, it was used in a Harper's title, and gets 224 Google NEWS hits; and over 2 million regular Ghits. --Haemo 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup this obviously notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Adraeus 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly notable concept. Pete.Hurd 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The term has been in general use for more than twenty years. It's not a neologism. BTLizard 08:33, 28 April 2007 (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.
