Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation rx

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. kur ykh 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation rx

Term doesn't exist at all (checked Google), PROD removed by User:IHeartOscar. Speedy also removed for some odd reason. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Speedy wasn't denied but removed by another user. I suggest you tag it again for speedy and monitor that no one removes it. Both contributors are SPA, possibly socks [1], the creator even indulging in vandalism [2], [3]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term exists sorry its not on google buddy thanks for your useless opinion though. If you dont like the page then leave it serves a purpose and it has relevent information for those interested in the subject. So go bother someone else with your lame removal junk sorry you arent interested just go away. PS your a total joke for putting time into this posting clearly you have nothing going for you so good luck w that...thankssssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartOscar (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — IHeartOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete (possible speedy, though I don't think it qualifies). The article seems like a made up point of view. Also, the author and his likely sock are indulging in borderline vandalism/attacks; it is reasonable to say that this is an extension of the same. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Term does seem to exist: [4], not sure what Darth Panda searched for. No opinion on notability or keep/delete, but perhaps allowing the AFD to proceed isn't that bad an idea. IHeartOscar is about to get blocked for personal attacks, so hopefully the AFD can continue in peace. --barneca (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you notice, from the Google search, all of the search results are from pharmaceutical companies, which seems to me to be an advertisement point. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like original research and a neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Barneca points out, there are sources that use this term with the meaning described in the article. The term may ultimately be classified as a neologism, but perhaps we can find somewhere to merge or redirect this content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Media types like to make up terms. But this one is particularly contrived and meaningless. I don't think the subject is encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The PROD was removed once again by User:71.232.77.79, probably a sock of IHeartOscar. Perhaps something on prescription drug abuse can be added to Drugs or Recreational drug use, but an entire article is unnecessary. Lithium81 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the author assuming ownership, performing vandalism, and using sockpuppets, I recommend a speedy delete, salting and blocking the author for the rest of winter for disruptions. Alexius08 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Googling this was tricky, but once I got rid of the Lexus and Mazda false positives, I found that almost all hits were for reviews/publicity etc. for a book by this title, all published within about a month of April 2005. The others seem to be independent, obvious coinages by anyone who wants to make a scare about youthful prescription drug abuse. The book seems to have no real notability (it isn't mentioned in the article), and while there is some continuing low level media hysteria there's no evidence that it adds up to anything. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I have seen the term occasionally in print media when used in scare articles, but not enough usage to warrant an article. Maybe if it explodes into real media hysteria. Viewtyjoe (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dopehead manifesto. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google News lists this term in a few obscure articles; importantly, there seems to be a movie about prescription drug abuse with this title. We don't have a specific article on prescription drug abuse yet, and it's about time we got one. This can be redirected and any useful content moved if one would be created. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (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.