Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disturbia

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbia

Disturbia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just a neologism that's already been transwikied. The article—even the quotes—provides no evidence the term has ever really been used. Answers.com, Oxford English Dictionary online, Google ("define:disturbia"), and Urban Dictionary all come up empty. Plus, the article is taking up space needed by an upcoming movie. --zenohockey 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as NN neologism. Searching Google News Archive turns up little besides references to the film and to an earlier book[1]. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Since it's already been transwikied it's not needed here, especially since it's not that notable.

Weak delete as it reads like an unsourced personal essay, although it could possibly have the scope for a real article if referenced properly.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the subject is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move Is this a real word?--Sefringle 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NEO. Who uses this supposed word? --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above comments. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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.