Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDIMBY

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 as protologism. DS 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SDIMBY

A pretty clear neologism. I get absolutely no relevant Google hits. Prod was removed and phrase defended on the talk page. David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, notwithstanding the usual neologism defense (It's a great term if only people would use it). Fan-1967 01:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term SDIMBY is a valid term and has been in use, although for a relatively short time. "Smart Growth" and "Smart Development" are two terms easily found through Google. Those that encourage these approaches to development are known as SDIMBYs. The application of the acronym is usually associated not with the urban planners but rather with the communities and the grassroots activists that are seeking a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the developers.

The term SDIMBY has been in use in Los Angeles for well over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO. Full disclosure: I'm the one who added the {{prod}}. SWAdair 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SDIMBY is a needed term to help define the subtle but significant approaches made to development. There are nany terms like Yimby and NIABY that only recently appeared . SDIMBY is only the latest and shows a distinct difference between the others listed. There are other writers willing to expnd on this term, but only if it is not considered for deletion.Thanks for your diligent consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Mike Dillon 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've dealt with development issues in large and small cities, covered discussions about smart development, and never heard this used. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and because the reasons proffered for keeping it raise issues under WP:V and WP:OR. Doctor Whom 21:38, 31 July 2006 (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.