- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spaz Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing more than a (badly worded) definition for a slang term. Spaz is already defined in wiktionary, with references to the slang meanings. ARendedWinter 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that "Spaz attack" is more of a culture thing than an actual phrase, it has its place in an encyclopedia. My problem with the article is that its too short. If it was longer it would make sense. Maybe include use in culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has a place in an encyclopaedia if it is a thing with a coherent and concrete definition. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is a coherent concept by this name, and that that concept has been properly documented in depth by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. A Google search produces urbandictionary, blogs, facebook, this Wikipedia article, an advert for a CD entitled "Spaz attack", etc etc, but nothing remotely resembling significant coverage in a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete concur that it is just a piece of slang and not note worthy. Dan arndt (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2010 (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.