Deletion of Bogan

Comment: Neologism. There is quite a bit of stuff written on the subject, which is quite surprising for an article on a word. I personally don't know its notability in Australia and New Zealand, but it links to quite a bit of things on Wikipedia (nearly 100). However, according to , we try to avoid writing articles on neologisms because |Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could be a candidate for a move to Wikitionary, but I think apparently that it's notable enough for Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:WINAD)

Comment: it seems to me that no-one in this 'discussion' has managed to assert how this article can be more than a dicdef, which was my original reason for nominating the article. My use of  was merely to point out that most of the article is at present OR, and that that's all that pads it beyond a dicdef. Even the assertion of fictional characters as bogans is largely unverifiable, except in a couple of seminal cases where the word 'bogan' was specifically used. The wide currency of a word in no way indicates that there should be an article about it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)