Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockney

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 18:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mockney

Neologism. Is it notable? Not too sure if it should just be deleted outright, so I thought I'd float it for a vote. --khaosworks 18:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, file on cleanup. It's a fairly well-trammelled expression in the UK, and has potential to expand into a little demographic study like chav (with which it has much in common). -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's coming along nicely now. –Hajor 19:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable pseudo-accent. Kappa 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be a fairly widely used term in the English media (that's the media in England, not the media in all the variants of the English language). Old enough that I wouldn't count it as a neologism. A quick search shows the Guardian newspaper has used it in at least 188 articles dating back to 1999. Average Earthman 21:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 02:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like a British version of Wigger. Rick K 00:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - real. - David Gerard 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep not just known to the UK English media - it's moderately well-known in other English speaking countries like here in NZ, presumably just not in the US. (Redirect to Jamie Oliver? ;) Grutness|^hello? 02:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Keep. Kinitawowi 12:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.