Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copious free time

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. jj137 ^♠ 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copious free time

Contested prod. This article is little more than a dictionary definition with some etymological information. The sole source is Eric Raymond's version of the "Jargon File," which contains a lot of stuff that ESR just made up. There is no evidence that this phrase is notable; it gets some Google hits, but far less than "trivial example," "random term," and "this is not a step," none of which have, or need articles. <eleland/talkedits> 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Seems more like an expanded dictionary def. for something that didn't really need defining. Pharmboy (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little more than a DICDEF (FIGSPEECH?). J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom is correct. Article should be deleted. This mage should be moved or just deleted.Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is basically a dictionary definition with a quote of someone saying it. It is even stated in the article that it is very similar to another phrase, which already has an article. If not completely deleted and forgotten about, it should be merged with the Real soon now article or at least mentioned in it. Tim meh ^contribs 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2007 (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.