Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiclib

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiclib[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like nearly all mentions of this are on Wikipedia or its mirrors. NN, it's a term that never really was used much at all. --W.marsh 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I get 95 hits on google groups; ppl do sometimes this word in discussion (on USENET anyways). The term was also featured in the newspapers during the Nixon scandal, and in at least one recent article on MSN. When does an admitted neologism cross the line and have "realistic evidence of existence"? Eaglizard 09:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used heavily in the political discourse of the late 60s and early 70s in the US. Phrase coined by Spiro Agnew (I think) and pops up in alot of Nixon-related primary sources (his enemy list, for example). Youngamerican 18:32, 10 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.