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. JForget 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goalferee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lame attempt by someone to coin a word. Sorry, we don't create new words, publishers do that. Remarkably, only one hit on Google search-- and it's for the Wikipedia article! "Goalferee"%20&sa=N&hl=en&tab=nw. I still haven't figured out what a "goalferee" is supposed to be anyway. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the creator is trying to refer to the equivalent of a line judge for the goal line. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:NEO. (Comment - "diving to the ground without cause": isn't that what a dive is anyway?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable (and borderline unpronouncable) neologism allegedly coined by users of one insignificant message board -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this coinage offends me as a student of English Language and Literature! Definitely non notable. Giant Snowman 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st point, ' Sorry we dont create words ,publishers do ' wow that's pretty arrogant. I thought words were memes , and language a constantly changing living organism. Glad you put me right on that. Point 2.If there is a term or phrase that you haven't heard it means that it should be deleted? Again the word arrogance seems appropriate. Only one hit on google , yes and that will be the one where I mention this word that has been cropping up IRL for a very recent change in football rules. Im a new user so could you explain to me this procedure where you don't agree with someone and so get to delete their post. What is your title ? Gatekeeper of the Mediocre. Hey theres a new word. Keep-diocre , you think it'll catch on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearoid Martin (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there's a good chance that the phrase "Gatekeeper of the Mediocre" will catch on. I (sincerely) like the sound of it. Another editor once gave me the title "Defender of Crap". Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this Wikipedia policy page, which states "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." If you can provide reliable sources (see this page for a definition of what that is) that proves that people are using this word, then it might be eligible for an article. Unfortunately just saying "I've heard some people using this word" isn't sufficient. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, a clear joke Spiderone 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is questionable. No reliable sources/references to support.Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; appears to be a hoax/joke. Jogurney (talk) 18:27, 21 September 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.