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. Nishkid64 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threadster[edit]

Threadster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Fails WP:NEO. No reliable sources. Normally I'm fairly lenient with neologisms, but this one isn't used on any major forums that I know of. --- RockMFR 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Akihabara 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete May perhaps advance in the future from a non-notable neologism to a notable one. But hasn't done so yet.--Anthony.bradbury 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — - does not cite its sources; furthermore, there is no mention of a Threadster on any search engine (search example) bar the link given from UrbanDictionary.com in the article and websites named Threadster. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not that popular of a term that I know of, most likely a non-notable neologism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO and WP:OR. JuJube 01:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. In time, this might be the "4-1-1" needed for info on this term. But as a neolism, it just is not there yet. Ronbo76 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as neologism and original research. Bigtop 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, in addition to OR/lack of RS as noted by nom. Article provides no more information than a bare definition, needs to supply some background on history, use and context of term to be encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-fails guidelines, only used on some boards, and it doesn't seem like anyones ever head of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:56, 16 January 2007 (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.