Deletion of Disemvoweling (2nd nomination)

Comment: The Jargon File (also published under the name ''The New Hacker's Dictionary'', ISBN 0262680920) is generally regarded as a reliable source on computer-related jargon.  Why would you discount it?  Also, why do you discount the other sources that are linked in the article? Double-tongued Word Wrester Dictionary, for instance, is published by Grant Barrett, a professional etymology researcher, so counts as a reliable source per the definition at .  The term has been discussed in professionally published magazines (see the link to the SFX column in the article), also.  Why are these not reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: term is in the Jargon File, generally considered a reliable source on computer-related slang terms, and there are other citations. The article could be improved per , but that's cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: blogger |neologism with no |reliable sources to indicate |notability or widespread usage. No, the 'Jargon file' doesn't count
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RS||WP:N)