Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gear Acquisition Syndrome

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

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

A jocular essay about a jocular neologism that Google Books confirms did indeed catch on, to a small and unremarkable extent. There could be a kernel of psychological interest to the concept, even though there is none to the article. (Perhaps it could be redirected somewhere, though not to "Acquisitiveness", as this redirects to the unsourced stub "Acquisitiveness (Phrenology)" [really]; and neither "Charles Foster Kane" nor "Imelda Marcos" gives me any idea.) I realize that Wikipedia is a dictionary when it comes to speech acts ("Fuck", "Kuwabara kuwabara", "LOL", etc etc), but I don't think it yet is one for the general ingredients of bulletin-board banter; and what with all its waffly accretions, this is anyway a crap (and prolix) dictionary definition. Hoary (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added this to the deletion sorting lists above according to the doomed article's own categories. If there's a DS list more specific to guitars than "Music-related" is, it should go there; and if there's a list related to psychopathology or shopping it should go there too. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was complete, as it left my hands. It was then dismantled. Hmmf! But thank you for recompleting it, Mr Bot. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case could be made to keep, but really this is just about an expression (against "not a dictionary") not a serious article. Wolfview (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Wolfview. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP is not a dictionary, and notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. However, with {{full}} citations added to the existing limited source meta-data in the article today, it might be that sufficient notability could be demonstrated; not sure. N2e (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (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.