Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contested Expression

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 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had listed this to go to Wiktionary, but a new edit shows the word was coined only last year, and this is a memorial to a neologism and its creator. Per WP:NOT, this is not a memorial, a dictionary, a place for original inventions, and this also comes close to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harro5 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Contested Expression" is an excellent way to describe the activities of graffiti, street art, skateboarding and etc. Simply because respect was shown to the person who coined the phrase is not sufficient reason to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintergoddess (talk • contribs)

• Delete NN. The phrase doesn't seem to google at all, except as cases where the two words just appear consecutively in a sentence. The phrase returns 0 Ghits when combined with the name of the person who supposedly coined the phrase. Fan1967 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having skated, and grown up around taggers, highly non-notable. Not for things you made up in school one day. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article even says it's a protologism; even if it is truly by a college instructor, WP:NFT seems to apply here. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted protologism. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice try, but no Google. ProhibitOnions
• Delete. A neologism with an inherent POV problem. Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.--Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not for things your teacher made up in school one day. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:08, 18 March 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.