Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiWaffle

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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism with few (around 230) Google hits, few of which are unique. Furthermore this is a well-known concept and is surely covered better elsewhere. Punkmorten 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Might possibly be worth a mention in the project namespace if expanded and examples of usage were given. Stifle 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many of the other informal fallacies listed at the Fallacy article are in the nature of "variations on a theme". Still, they come to recognized under catchy and distinctive names precisely because of their particular prevalence in peculiar provinces of common culture. TWISI (the way I see it), 230 hits on Google is sufficient evidence of an emergent phenomenon, and I think that I can safely predict that there will soon emerge a multitude more. You didn't hear it here first — You hear it here most. The self-referential character of the fallacy — of which more I'm forbad here to write — imparts to it a very striking family resemblance to many of the most notable and notorious among its kin, I dare say elevating it to the status of a veritable prototype, nay, more, a paragon of oxymoronic paradoxy. Jon Awbrey 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum. The "exact phrase" search engine at WP is not up to the task, but I'm looking for collaborators to help me write a bot, strawperson name "Notanexpertbot", to search for all the instances of the phrase "I am not an expert but" that were followed by administrative actions by the the soi-disant non-expert. I think that this would supply more data for the prominence of the theme.
• Delete per Stifle. --Thunk 18:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The principle of Corgeelblatt indicates clearly that this article should be deleted. If you have never heard of that principle that does not make it irrelevant. DJ Clayworth 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Stifle. -Rebelguys2 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologisms don't belong, regardless of their utility or accuracy or potential for emergence. Try again when it becomes just a "logism". Powers 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible WP:POINT -lethe ^talk 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Change vote to delete. I have userfried the content and consider myself sufficiently vented. Jon Awbrey 19:10, 26 January 2006 (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.