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. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porkulus[edit]

Protologism with little to no assertion of notability. Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, no reliable sources found on google web search, so it's non-notable Patton^t/c 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source (Wall Street Journal) is in the references section. Because it is a neologism, it is timely right now. Should it fade from use without historical import, it would be appropriate to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 21:53, February 1, 2009

That's not a reference, the word was used once in a newspaper article, it's not an article about the term.--Patton^t/c 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references establish the usage and definition of the term. —Gustnado (talk contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, trivial coverage (Ty whoevr fixed the double AfD)--Patton^t/c 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, the precise defining coverage.--Gustnado (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. Other than the fact that someone called the package "porkulus", it does not contribute to our knowledge of the subject. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It contributes to our knowledge of political humor and commentary. It is not meant to contribute to our knowledge of the legislation. comment added by Gustnado (talk contribs) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. --Peephole (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Protologism. Should it become widely used in the future, article may be recreated. . ¨¨ victor falk 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Just because a word is created in an opinion piece doesn't make it notable. Will Beback talk 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that and I created the page. (oops, forget to log in)--Gustnado (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This 'word' has only just been used for the first time, is an expression of one particular point of view on a topic with an existing article, and is treated here by way of a dictionary definition. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable protologism. (WP:NEO) — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 4 February 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.