Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clicktrance

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.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination Recommend under official policy WP:WINAD as dictionary definition and under official guideline WP:NEO as neologism without verified wide circulation or reliable sourcing. Only 414 google hits, 83 unique - and hits seem mainly to be blogs[1] Bwithh 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki as I just put the tag on the page. Daniel Case 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herm - does Wikitionary require reliable sourcing and proof of common usage? Bwithh 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See their criteria for inclusion. Daniel Case 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the link. Didn't realize Wikitionary policy was so loose. "Semi-official?" Isn't that like "Semi-pregnant"? And I dunno if the criteria outlined is that much different from Urban Dictionary... Bwithh 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it should be deleted, not transwiki'd. There are no references provided to demonstrate proof of common usage. --HResearcher 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki.  :) Dlohcierekim 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment attests from 2005 in Urban Dictionary. Does that count? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete original research. Or rename to ClickrefreshrandomstuffforfunwithHResearcher --HResearcher 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clicktrance does not meet the criteria in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. There is no evidence of Clearly widespread use. --HResearcher 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rather than transwiki, since this appears to be a non-notable neologism to me. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 08:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment attests from 2005 in Urban Dictionary. Does that count? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt it, no thumbs up and only a vague reference to boingboing.net. What you just provided still does not show Clearly widespread usage. --HResearcher 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source as the site does not check the validity of word definition or usage claims Bwithh 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 04:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR. Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 13 August 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.