Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOBATA

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 speedy deleted twice (G2 and A7) by Anthony Bradbury. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOBATA[edit]

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

A text book case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this very interesting and N --Anna O'Leary (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong delete - entirely non-notable broker/banker speak. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's not a speedy deletion category that this neatly fits into, otherwise I would have tagged it. Perhaps a category should be added for neoglisms/jargon..... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of what is explicitly not a criterion for speedy deletion, it says: "[Neologism|Neologisms]]. New specialized terms should have a wider hearing." -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? I am all in favour of a neologism speedy category and IMHO there would be a good WP:IAR justification for deleting this one rather than waste everyone's time discussing at at Afd... – ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (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.