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. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

neologism applies here. No references to support definition or even mainstream use of word. ttonyb (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Dogposter 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per article (proposed by NawlinWiki) Gosox5555 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. The pre-redirect content was not clearly notable, and the redirect target does not use the term. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NEO. Nothing of encyclopedic value to redirect. Warrah (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete None of the sources from the page before it was blanked even contained the phrase. Why would anyone try this page? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to "weak delete"; I'm somewhat moved by 141.217.105.21's examples below of use in the wild. Still unconvinced, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NEO. No evidence found that term is referred to by any secondary reliable sources. Calmer Waters 10:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gosox5555 and NawlinWiki. I'm lukewarm on the idea that this is a notable concept - But redirects are cheap. It's not an unreasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're cheap, but they're not free because they do imply meaning. And redirecting to Criticism of Wikipedia will just serve to confuse, because the article won't help anyone understand what a wiki warrior is; the page doesn't mention wiki warriors. I would almost conclude that it means someone who fights against wikipedia or something. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, I am not sure even the redirect makes sense. If it is not a common enough term then it seems the redirect is a waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Moreover, the material was not supposed to be blanked until the consensus was reached, yet it was immediately blanked. Please follow ALL wiki rules, whether it supports your POV or not. A request was made for more citations, and some have been given.141.217.105.21 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't just blanked, a redirect was made. That's ok, right? ErikHaugen (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For mainstream use of the term, here are examples:

• [1]
• [2]

and from the Wall Street Journal -

[3]141.217.105.21 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A potential resolution may be to transwiki to Wiktionary 68.43.236.244 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NEO and nominator. ^Pepper·_piggle 01:14, 8 January 2010 (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.