Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Close talker

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 Keep (No consensus). seems crufty but there are a lot of Ghits for term... --++Lar: t/c 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close talker[edit]

Not notable, don't think it can be verified and not much room for expansion Trebor 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. joturn e r 23:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's entered into the general parlance. A google search "-seinfeld" yields many Ghits [1], and I think the Seinfeld reference expands it beyond a dicdef. -- Samir धर्म 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It was an SNL skit too. Enough for a short article beyond just a dicdef. --JChap 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki dictdef, will always be one. Kotepho 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism.--Peta 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, neologism, fancruft. Take your pick. Reyk _YO! 07:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Reyk. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The phrase has entered the general language, as evidence by a well-known conservative blog I read today which linked to this very Wikipedia article. The article, of course, needs to be expanded.--Alabamaboy 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously, the article can be verified by anyone who watched that episode of Seinfeld. This isn't a tremendous advance for mankind or anything, but it is an interesting neologism and likely a permanent addition to the language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.227.154.100 (talk • contribs) 16:45, June 9, 2006.
Keep. It is accurate and somehow who reads it would know something new if they hadn't heard of the term. I see no good reason to remove it. --nertzy 01:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.