Wikipedia:Deletion review/Link leak

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept deleted. - brenneman ^{L} 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link leak

Speedy-deleted on 6 May 2006 with the comment "nonsense"

This request for review was originally posted at WT:DRV by anon user:84.48.23.149

Uh, is this the right place to ask someone to take a look at a deletion? I think the Deletionists did a number on [this article[1]] and they may have acted overly fast. The article is a candidate for being wikitransferred, but the "nonsense" deletion it's currently tagged with is not in accordance with the applicable sections of the guidelines as far as I can see. -Oystein

I am torn. I do not think that this qualified for speedy-deletion under the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. It certainly did not qualify as patent nonsense as we define it here. On the other hand, it is clearly a copyright violation of this site (or if it was dual-licensed, the permission was never documented). It is also very clearly a neologism. Google returns a grand total of 269 unique hits, most of which are either blogs (which do not meet the requirements for reliable sources) or are non-relevant. I see no possibility that this would survive an AFD discussion. Pending other evidence, I have to endorse deletion. I could, however, support a request for temporary undeletion so it can be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. I'd also request the deleting admin to be more precise when adding the reason for deletion. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion While probably not technically a "nonsense" article as tagged, I cannot support undeletion on the grounds that it would have no chance whatsoever to survive an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:SNOW. Unsourced, clearly unimportant (<1000 hits, many unrelated, which is absurd for a supposedly notable blogging term). Not worth the effort of listing, which is presumably why it was speedied. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Rossami. Although the justification given for the speedy was inadequate, its status as a probable copyvio weighs against reversal. Xoloz 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. "Nonsense" was incorrect, but it's pretty obvious non-encyclopedic recently invented expression with almost no usage. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:SNOW. The deletion request said because it's a "non-notable neologism created less than two weeks ago," which it is. Furthermore, the source cited, simplenomics, says "I need to define it for my blog friend Martin Neumann, over at Small Office Herald... Because Martin said I had to. So he can link to it, wikipedia it and all kinds of good things that I know nothing about." In other words, the source cited for this neologism acknowledges that the explicit definition was freshly created for the specific purpose of being cited in Wikipedia by Martin Neumann. The deleted article is signed by a user (who does not know that we do not sign articles) whose username happens to be User:MartinN, so it's a reasonable supposition that this is the very Martin Neumann who wanted to "wikipedia it." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 15 May 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.