Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen document

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen document

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

No evidence of notability given, and a web search fails to find any suitable references. Propose deletion as non-notable neologism. Impsswoon (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Wiktionary - there are many references to this phrase, but I can't find anything that supports it having its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~Delete. Would be more suitable for Wiktionary. APerson (talk!) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to "Delete" per the comments Hithladaeus made about the feasibility of putting this on Wiktionary. APerson (talk!) 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd prefer sending it to ~~WikiDictionary~~ Wiktionary but it's unlikely it'll happen (I've never used the site in my life so wouldn't have any idea on how to transwiki it over) so it may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 07:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't want to say what the Wiktionary folks can and cannot do, but a transwiki would give them "Evergreen" and then as "comb. Everygreen document." In other words, it's not an entry there, or not at a regular dictionary. As for the strength of this usage, I know that I'm a bit of a poor judge on what's obvious, but this is a relatively new combining term (hence the article and "I've heard of it") and yet relatively self-explaining. So. . . certainly no need for an encyclopedia article, and this is a definition, and not jargon or a complex concept. (Shrug.) This may be an evergreen debate, but I'd say delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:DICDEF. If someone wants to add it to Wiktionary, I have no objection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 31 May 2015 (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.