Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fangush

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 delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fangush

This WP page isn't notable enough is too neologistic to warrant it's own article or page. The article only has two edits, by an anonymous IP address. The term renders only one result from a full site search of all WP's namespaces, and Google only renders 48 results; most from WP's category listings of it. LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

• Comment. This is not an article in the (Main) namespace. Notability, which is a contentious criterion for deletion in that namespace certainly doesn't apply to an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Jkelly 07:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jkelly's point is correct, but in my experience, this term is simply not used here, and the description of it seems inappropriately pejorative anyway. Also, redundant in light of the widely-used well-established "fancruft." Grounds for deletion is analogous to neologism -- term not in use. Xoloz 07:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you google for "fan gush", which picks up that and "fan-gush", you get over 235 hits, just about all of them outside Wikipedia and most of them having this meaning. I suspect that's more outside-of-WP hits than the various forms of "fancruft" get, although I haven't weeded through the results to verify that. The article could use some work, and maybe even get moved to the main namespace with a reference to its WP applicability, but I wouldn't just remove it. Wasted Time R 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First, it's not a proper Wikipedia-space article since it has nothing (that I can tell) to do with the mechanics or administration of creating an encyclopedia. To all appearances, this was created in the Wikipedia-space merely to avoid the regular AFD deletion process. Second, what is there is a mere dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Move it out of Wikipedia space into a general article. prashanthns
• Delete. Is not a term used on Wikipedia. If it's used elsewhere it might warrant an article in the main namespace. Optichan 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Over 235 hits? Oh please. Come back when you get some kilogoogles. Delete. Radiant_>|< 00:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment How many hits does "deletionist" get? Jkelly 01:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • About 10k, which you could have easily looked up yourself. It is unfortunate that my Association of Mergists gets less than 1k. Despite my sig, people tend to overlook efforts at accessibility and organization of information. Now kindly stop jumping to the wrong conclusions. Radiant_>|< 11:49, 29 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.