Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo
1/  is strongly involved here and states neologism articles are strongly discouraged, and ''"Articles on protologisms recently emerged neologisms are almost always deleted"''; 2/  "not an indiscriminate collection of information. Collecting every newly emergent neologism would breach this; 3/ has  and other policies require a certain degree of long term historical perspective, notable usage, etc. This expression is neither well defined ( nor widely used. No good evidence has been provided that it has passed into common speech outside its own small circle. 4/ It is cruft (definition: of interest to fans and such only, limited or no general interest). If kept, in addition,  would require at the least a rename. But to my mind, , and then  and , seem fairly conclusive at this time
— user:FT2, 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NEO||WP:NOT||WP:NEO||WP:NPOV||WP:NEO||WP:NOT||WP:N (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)