Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comb-shaped people

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. clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comb-shaped people

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure where to start with this. Probably a DICDEF issue, but more problematically the only reference is to a user-generated site (effectively a blog). Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This made me laugh so hard when I found it among the orphans that I made it my word of the jour, and just minutes later it's put up for deletion. Seems almost a shame to loose it. Almost. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. It's still making me laugh.
Delete I thought strongly about nominating it when it was first created. I have to admit it made me laugh too, but I wanted to give the author who invented the term and put it on Wikipedia more time to show that his term had spread with independent reliable source, but it has not. T-shaped skills marginally meets this level of notability, but "comb-shaped people" does not. If it ever does, which I doubt, then it may be included in Wikipedia.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. Edison (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any sources, no evidence that anyone actually uses the term. JIP | Talk 07:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism and fairly obvious WP:REFSPAM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per WP:NEO. It exists as a neologism, but after several searches, it apparently has not received any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam MarioNovi (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a lot of original research on a neologism. Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 3 March 2013 (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.