Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quirkyalone (2nd nomination)

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. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quirkyalone

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

Obscure neologism with flash-in-the-pan usage, now faded from the lexicon. While the article has some significant sources from the early 2000's, notability has not been enduring. Previous AFD closed as keep in 2009 before the concept of enduring notability was introduced. The Dissident Aggressor 19:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what "enduring notability" is, but I think this ought to be deleted, pace Hobit, who voted "keep" in the last AfD but even their vote wasn't all that convinced. I think that a book here and a few mentions in a few papers do not make for encyclopedic notability; I see no evidence of widespread usage, let alone discussion of this term. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will simply amend by first afd comment of "no evidence of widespread usage" to "no evidence of any usage". Beach drifter (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, there's no requirement for something to remain in discussion to remain in Wikipedia. Cited coverage shows notability, and just because it's faded from usage that doesn't mean it's no longer notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that as a neologism, it fails. The sources do not show that it has ever been in widespread usage or really in usage at all. They just mention the book or the website and describe the authors use of the word. Beach drifter (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the walled garden fallacy of WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, for what it's worth: [1], [2], [3]. These are not very in-depth hits, but they're from 2015. I don't really care if this is kept or deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources kind of illustrate my point. They show that the term exists and was used by the original author, but they do not show that anyone every uses it. Beach drifter (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (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.