Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoodooScript
- 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- VoodooScript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism with no signs of more or less widespread use, let alone compliance with WP:GNG. Proposed deletion declined by the author of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Looks to me to be in violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Johnny338 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT#DICT. -- Jersey92 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete; neologism with no third-party refs. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a notable neologism. The article presents only a single primary source, and I can't find any independent, secondary reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#DICTAdamh4 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: The author of the article left a comment on the talk page of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.