Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine-like

Columbine-like

Not an official designation or category. Seems like a mere phrase that's more colloquial. Doesn't seem appropriate as an encyclopedia article Malamockq 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DXRAW 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncommon neologism or protologism. In order to be considered notable per WP:NEO, neologism must have references to reliable sources talking about the word itself, not just using it to describe something. Also much of the article discusses other Columbine-related terms such as "College Columbine". It appears to me that the editor may have been attempting in good faith to write an article on the comparisons between Columbine and other shootings, but we already have an article that covers much of this. --Charlene 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The word is (or phrase) is inelegant and unnecessary, and the article struggles to establish exactly what it might mean. Anyway, fails WP:NEO. BTLizard 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noting my own opinion, Columbine, while historical in that it was the first well-documented (!) mass murder at a school by a couple of disgruntled students, wasn't really that historical; you look around, and I'm certain you'll turn up more mass-murder disgruntled something-or-other shootings before this. No less sucky, but not that historical. But that said, discussion has it right - it's more a neologism, and this one seems to have popped up in light of last week's shooting at VA Tech. I blame the media - but that the press said it doesn't make it a notable term. Delete. That said, I have no prejudice to recreation if it can not only be determined to be in the mainstream vocabulary, but also has some background to it other than just the obvious comparison to the Columbine shootings from roughly a decade ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Neologism, original research, dicdef, inaccurate, content fork, unsourced - all we need now is a copyvio and I think we've collected the set - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn neologism --Mhking 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt; fails WP:NEO --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]