The result was keep. It's been snowing here since day 1. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
If this page isn't a neologism I don't know what is. To quote policy, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."
Repeated attempts, and requests (since 2007, when this article was last nominated for deletion) for reliable sources have failed to unearth a single reliable discussion of this term. I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found. Peregrine981 ( talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It's been snowing here since day 1. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
If this page isn't a neologism I don't know what is. To quote policy, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."
Repeated attempts, and requests (since 2007, when this article was last nominated for deletion) for reliable sources have failed to unearth a single reliable discussion of this term. I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found. Peregrine981 ( talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply