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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinster[edit]

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

Nonnotable, newly invented "subculture" classification with no sources for the actual existence of the thing described, much less for the notability of the thing described. The article creator has offered no sourcing other than Urban Dictionary [1], which of course is not sufficient, but they removed the prod tag so here we are. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no reliable sources to attest to notability. (Also, it's a direct copy of the Urban Dictionary [2] page, which has a copyright statement at the bottom). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a reliable word that describes a rising subculture. To delete it now and not add upon it would only complicate creating it and building upon it later. Also, the fact that Zebedee noted it from urban dictionary is proof of the fact that it is a true word. Perhaps changing however the definition from that of Urban Dictionary would be of use though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheymrgray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Heyheymrgray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but notability - can you find any reliable sources (see WP:RS) that support its notability (see WP:N)? Just a dictionary definition is not sufficient, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable Sources cited or found. The website www.vinster.com, found at Google, is described as "under construction." Nothing relevant found at Google News. Incidentally, the entire article is copied verbatim from the Urban Dictionary; is that a copyvio? --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sole discernable source for this obscure neologism is the Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source per WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:23, 3 January 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.