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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RWNJ[edit]

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

Searching for RWNJ shows the acronym is used in the titles of some articles, but not terribly frequently. The only sources used in the article are UrbanDictionary and internetslang.com, neither of which are reliable sources. If anything, the article seems to violate WP:NEO. Ish dar ian 05:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fits WP:NEO to a T. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 06:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every acronym does not deserve an article. Needs to be an encyclopedic topic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete neologism. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable acronym. Fails WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2011 (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.