Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulching

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 (WP:SNOW). — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulching

There is no reliable source showing the term's usage. The article has five citations: 1 and 4 are blogs, classic WP:SPS and therefore not reliable; 2 and 3 link to 1998 articles clearly marked by the authors as unfinished drafts; 5 is a chat forum, another classic WP unreliable source. A Google search finds references linking back to the same authors as the unreliable sources above. Google Books and Scholar come up blank. Finally, WP is not a dictionary or a guide to slang, jargon or usage. KD Tries Again (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Aynrandian neologism. Pburka (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of evidence of coverage in reliable sources, a decent-length article on this topic will be unverifiable, and this should therefore by deleted should no such sources be forthcoming. Skomorokh 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, this usage is newish but the word itself is not, see here. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia as a dictionary definition. An alternative would be to redirect to Underground economy or Bartering. Drawn Some (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the usage cited in that link is completely different than the usage referred to in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Delete or transwiki as WP:DICTDEF and a largely unnotable WP:NEOLOGISM. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki as per TallNapoleon. I agree that the term is largely non-notable at the moment. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TallNapoleon --Snowded (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the problem of reliable sourcing (Skomorokh above). Peter Damian (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gulching sounds like something unspeakably perverted, btw. Peter Damian (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the obvious, should have been an easy speedy delete. --Karbinski (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TallNapoleon. J Readings (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, effectively original research. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find sources, but this is a neologism that hasn't got outside the "gulching" community. It is a version of self-sufficiency/libertarian anarchism/survivalism/autarky with another name. If there were just one reliable source then it could be mentioned in another article. Fences and windows (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something someone made up in school one day, basically. Hipocrite (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me, or is it snowing? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't someone other than the editor who made the proposal supposed to sum up the consensus here?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

An administrator will be along shortly to put the poor thing out of its misery. Skomorokh 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.