Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Amys

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 --JForget 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Amys[edit]

PROD contested. A 'new term' that is so new (article states "early months of 2008" having been created at the end of February) that it cannot be notable enough to be, say, included in the OED. A handful of examples of a journalistic phrase cannot be sufficient to warrant an article on the topic. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:N. This term is invented just at the end of 2007 (few months back). I think its notability is not established yet. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niaz. ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obscure neologism.--TBC !?! 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain for the time being. It isn't obscure and there's quite a bandwaggon building up around it. LymeRegis (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that suggests to me that it is not notable at the moment. If it continues to be used in the future, we can add an article about it then. That's why I propose deletion - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It can be resurrected if the epithet shows some staying power. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be evidence of widespread usage to establish this as a new term. As of yet, all we have are a few examples of usage in the press but no sources which cover the term itself. --Sturm 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Recreate if and when it catches on. I'm sure someone was once described as a "New Cyndi (Lauper)". JJL (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability unsure -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's a total neologism and is not a worthy topic of an encyclopedia article as the term itself has not received in-depth coverage, it has just been used. If it belongs anywhere, it's Urban Dictionary, and even then they tend more towards internet slang etc than media hype.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:40, 4 March 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.