Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phelpsian Feat

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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phelpsian Feat[edit]

WP:Neologism. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day watching the Olympics. Movingboxes (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a minute to Google "Phelpsian Feat" and see what responses you get. This is a phrase that will likely be around for a while, and defining the reference is my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clickokay (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Clickokay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - A google search only gives blogs as results, WP:NEO comes into question here and I think it fails. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to record something made up on the spur of the moment. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation, if, by some miracle, it actually does become a real noteworthy phrase. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not for things made up one day, namely neologisms like this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defeat. Even though what Phelps did was really neat, that notability does not transfer over to a phrase created for the occasion. --Dhartung | Talk 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something made up one day that isn't notable doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let stand Reading the word in a political piece in today's New York Times, then Googling it, I was relieved to see a citation here. Lest we take ourselves too seriously, let's remember that Wikipedia is the first place many folks look.Ijmusic (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because someone coined a term about a notable person doesn't make the term notable; and this fails WP:NEO. Cliff smith ^talk 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO. NUKE IT! Tavix (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lest the people who think they made up something that's not ephemereal slang take themselves too seriously. JuJube (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition of a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, spur of the moment neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Michael Phelps. While there are a few non-wiki ghits (84) and a few gnews hits (12), it's too soon to see if this has any staying power. Do the reader who searches for this term a favor and send them to Michael's page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 20 August 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.