180:. Rush coined the term many years ago and many have used it. It gets over 17k ghits and has existed long enough to be more than a short term word. It is controversial because it sounds negative but was conceived as a neutral term. There are many references outside of the article, and it isn't required that the sources be used to justify the notability of the phrases infobabe/newsbabe. The article needs to be properly referenced, not deleted.
112:
17:
85:
80:
223:
36:
89:
72:
222:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
208:
196:
184:
172:
158:
142:
125:
76:
54:
49:
68:
60:
52:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
135:
151:
134:
It seems to have sources but they aren't very notable and the term seems like a neologism.
205:
181:
167:
204:
per nomination, not even worthy of passing to
Wiktionary or even Urban Dictionary.
121:
106:
193:
155:
154:- no references that actually talk about the term and not just use it.
166:
funny, but still a neologism with no third-party, secondary sources.
216:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
192:- Prevalent attitude in broadcast news. Not neologism.
102:
98:
94:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
119:a journalist got called it? Big deal. No sources.
226:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
243:
209:17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
197:11:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
55:19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
185:22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
173:22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
159:16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
143:13:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
126:07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
219:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
234:
221:
170:
139:
110:
92:
34:
242:
241:
237:
236:
235:
233:
232:
231:
230:
224:deletion review
217:
168:
137:
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
240:
238:
229:
228:
212:
211:
199:
187:
175:
161:
145:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
239:
227:
225:
220:
214:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
198:
195:
191:
188:
186:
183:
179:
176:
174:
171:
165:
162:
160:
157:
153:
149:
146:
144:
141:
140:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
123:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
218:
215:
201:
189:
177:
163:
147:
136:
131:
120:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
178:Strong keep
138:Wikidudeman
206:Burntsauce
182:Pharmboy
169:VanTucky
113:View log
69:Newsbabe
61:Newsbabe
86:protect
81:history
50:Jaranda
202:Delete
164:Delete
152:WP:NEO
148:Delete
132:Delete
90:delete
46:delete
194:Wl219
156:Corpx
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
190:Keep
150:per
122:Will
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
111:– (
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
48:.
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.