Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger

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 Transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism. Prod removed and justified by providing a second source. However, according to WP:NEO a neologism fits the inclusion citeria not simply by being used in reliable sources, but by having articles ABOUT the term in reliable sources. Quoted text from WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." This term clearly fails the inclusion criteria for neologisms, so it should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the article as I needed to explain the term used elsewhere in wikipedia. I can have a look for other references about the term.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NEO. If there are articles using neologisms that do not meet the standards of Wikipedia policy, the use of those neologisms should be removed. One should not create an article about a neologism because other articles use the neologism, unless the neologism meets all of the criteria of WP:NEO. It is the same as using the existance of red links in other articles to justify the creation of an article about a person who is non-notable. If the person is not notable, the red links should be removed; the existance of the red links is not in and of itself justification to create an article that does not meet WP:N or its relevant sub-policiesTheseeker4 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{holdon}} Don't use "holdon" here; only when contesting a speedy deletion. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article is of minor importance, however I think it explains the term well. It has been used prominently by a major UK politician, widely reported, and then taken up by others. I'm all for following Wiki guidelines, but this is not an obscure technical term or a piece of regional dialect of little interest outside its area of usage - it's a significant concept of increasing relevance that people may wish to look up and understand.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. WP:NEO covers this pretty well. It may yet become a proper term, but a handful of uses (even by notable people) isn't enough. And, of course, there are no good examples (yet, anyway) of anyone who could be described as a "Greenfinger". Some other neologisms at least have that going for them. Wiktionary may be a better place for this. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, which does not yet have an article on this word that appears to meet their inclusion guidelines. JulesH (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2009 (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.