Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital bra/bikini

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. Black Kite 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital bra/bikini[edit]

A neologism sourced from one comment in an online discussion. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in a forum one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is a shame, a well written article. However, I could find No sources or references on/for or about the term. If they could be provided, I would defentitly reconsider changing opinion. Shoessss | Chat 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient sources. If sources later become available, the article can be re-created later. The term did show up in a Google Books search, which supposedly had a U.S. Congressional document saying, "The economic path the US is on, with the Digital Bra accelerating economic gains out of proportion ..." but the document turned out to actually say "Digital Era". [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL! --Canley (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: You need to read this entry and to ask yourself "What is an appropriate level of sourcing for a word used by Anime fans?" this isn't a redflag claim, or an extraordinary entry, it's an entry about a simple phrase used by Anime and Managa fans to describe something simple and non-volatile. In this instance the level of sourcing is appropriate. As for not being able to find references to this phrase, please look more closely, within 10 seconds I found a good half dozen uses on a single notable website. * *

* * * *

Here are a couple of examples of fan use * * on message sites that don't meet sourcing criteria.

The term is notable and commonly used. It's also a stub so having 1-2 sources is no big deal. The fact that it has an image actually showing what happens is also a big thing in its favor. - perfectblue (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hey - perfectblue I checked your sources and they are all from the same place. And to be honest, a quote from just one Site does not make for a Notable phrase. Sorry to say, you have not swayed my opinion. Shoessss | Chat 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search shows only de minimis usage as idiom. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'delete or consider transwiki to Wiktionary. Right now, there are fan uses and a few mentioned in more substantive works but no reliabel source defines or discusses this notion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (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.