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 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snomping[edit]

Neologism. Contested PROD. Little more than a set of dictionary definitions; could perhaps grow to an encyclopedia article if use of the term takes off, but at present the only source supplied is Wordpress.com - a blog site. Few Ghits, and they mostly seem to be blogs and the like. Per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, it should not have an article, for lack of reliable sources. "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- dicdef, neologism, low number of GHits seems to indicate term has not crossed into general use yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when (if) it ever becomes a word, it can have an entry at Wiktionary, but for now it is simply a neologism that doesn't need anything from us. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's already been speedied for the same reason and nothing has changed. andy (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (but not speedy). There is now context that says snomping is a neologism. What there aren't are reliable sources or indication that the term is notable (and/or in widespread use). The article fails notaiblity and verifiability at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EC'd trying to prod on the initial tags, and then EC'd trying to prod on the prod. Wasn't expecting a contested prod... There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this term. Not even 30 unique hits for Snomping from Google...and not all relate to this definition. You'd think such a hot online term would have more results. --Onorem♠Dil 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism and no references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:31, 4 July 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.