| Revision as of 13:46, 16 December 2024 editJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 edits →Boriswave: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:50, 16 December 2024 edit undo148.252.144.37 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year ] (]) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | :This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year ] (]) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. ] (]) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ::I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. ] (]) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. ] (]) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:50, 16 December 2024
Boriswave
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Boriswave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have never heard this term used before. As another user observed this appears to have been referred to by a single writer for the Telegraph. I suspect the intent behind creating this article seems to be to create chatter so that it becomes a meme, which is subsequently used as a reason to have the page. John Smith's (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year 213.147.110.205 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. 148.252.144.37 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)