Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kancho sense

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho sense

I nominate Kancho sense because

• It is a term a person made up on their website.
• It only relates to one website.
• Its history page has many people trying to speedy delete it.
• Its talk page has one person say it does not belong and that is the only edit so far.
• I want people to vote on whether to keep it or not (better than speedy which lacks discussion or voting).

StarTrekkie 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if it has only been made up on one website, then it's not notable. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like an NN Neologism to me Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's an "NN Neologism" and how's it differ from a regular neologism? StarTrekkie 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment: NN is a common abbreviation standing for "non-notable". As distinct from a notable neologism like, say, chugger. Stifle 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I've heard of the page before. It made me promise myself I would never, ever, under any circumstances, set foot on Japan. --Agamemnon2 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with JIP. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:40Z
• Technically not a speedy, like I tagged it way back when... but I'm wondering how I missed the tag being removed. Delete it a lot, utter nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kancho, the webpage (outpostnine) was mentioned in newsweek, so it is fairly widely known, and kancho (and the related sence) are mentioned very often. redirecting would give the stray passerby an idea of what kancho is, and kancho sence should be obvious (to those readers of outpostnine, the main source of the article) from that information. oops, forgot to sign, and yeah, obvious probably isn't the right wordSmmurphy^(Talk) 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is fine - the Kancho article was quite educational for me, and the Kancho Sense article makes a certain amount of sense now. However it is not obvious to me from the Kancho article that Kancho Sense is "the art of avoiding Kancho", nor would it mean anything else to me. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 07:33Z

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.