Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backtract undo series

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. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backtract undo series

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

Unreferenced neologism, as well as self-reference to Wikipedia. Biglulu (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with offer to userfy. Pages on Wikipedia do not belong in the mainspace, unless they are on topics that have gained outside coverage (e.g. ArbCom, Essjay controversy, or, of course, Wikipedia neologism). Additionally, if Cotten134 (talk · contribs) is interested in the userfication option (layman's terms: it would be transferred to your userspace, Cotten, probably as User:Cotten134/Backtract undo series), I would urge him to say so, so that we can speedily wrap this up. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This almost seems like a candidate for speedy G6 as content in the wrong namespace; if it belongs anywhere its in Wikipedia: namespace. If the page creator or another editor disagrees, though, it wouldn't count as uncontroversial maintenance. In that case, I would say delete it as a neologism and something that is non-notable outside the world of wiki editors. Cnilep (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a very important concept with widespread implications around the world.--Cotten134 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3 Made up probably by the article creator, non notable neologism. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and fast. United States Man (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of a bunch of inappropriate self-referential articles on Wikipedia created by this editor. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. After some searches, this term does not appear to have received any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably could have been speedily deleted considering the almost non-sensical nature of this article. No sources whatsoever. Mkdw ^talk 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE the vacuous article about making 1000 edits to the sandbox and perhaps also the user too. 212.139.99.231 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User warned for abusing editing privileges. I'll take it to AN/I if he keeps going. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth. Amalthea 17:59, 9 January 2013 (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.