Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Words

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boake

Neologism. WP:NFT Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Prod removed silently by anon. Mr Stephen 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a new word. ---J.S (t|c)
• Keep This is an up and coming word that people should know about and is being considered by dictionaries for their knew editions. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE. It is not a word promotion or just made up and posted willy nilly, but a thoughtout article that will help educate the world about a new term.68.81.89.156 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The job of wikipedia is to educate people about things that already exist, not things you hope to exist. The article can be re-witen once the word is in common usage.---J.S (t|c) 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as a non-notable neologism. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. The word does not appear to even respect any basic rule of grammar, which would suggest to me unlikely to be accepted as a legitimate word in the English language. Until it is accepted, it is no better than a word someone made up at school one day. Ohconfucius 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia stresses that it is not a dictionary for new words. Wryspy 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a protologism.--Isotope23 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Bobet 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podstreaming

Yet another podcasting protologism. Claims to have been in use for a year and a half, but still only 136 Google hits. --Haakon 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Sounds like a fad but google hits are around only 300 plus most links are nonsense sites (on google search). The article may be crystal ball.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom (and article not long enough). Cedars 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has inherently notability as describing a new technology. Why should the its length matter? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

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.

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 redirect to List of words having different meanings in British and American English -- Samir धर्म 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK-US heterologues A-Z

At the moment, it is mostly a duplicate of List of words having different meanings in British and American English, but is receiving divergent edits. The point of it, AIUI, was to bring together all word usage differences between British English and American English. However, there are a number of problems:

• At the moment, only the first few rows are in the format being proposed. Apart from this, the effort to turn it into what it was intended to be seems to have abandoned. Promsan, creator of the page, seems to have disappeared (no edits since 28 September 2005).
• It is very long as it stands, and trying to bring together this information would make it even longer and produce little benefit over that already provided by the aforementioned article, List of British English words not used in American English and List of American English words not used in British English.
• The format makes little sense. What's the point of having four columns if only the first two or only the last two are going to be filled in any row?
• It is unclear what one is supposed to do with words that have more than one meaning on the same side of the pond, or meanings common to both sides as well as the different meaning. I can imagine it becoming quite messy.

As such, I feel that we should get rid of this and save the work for the three specialised articles I have mentioned. In the long run, it would be a nightmare to try maintaining this as well. -- Smjg 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've looked through the article's changes since creation, and merged into List of words having different meanings in British and American English the one or two changes that I feel need merging in. -- Smjg 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly turn into something like a disambiguation pointing to the other three, rather than actually delete? And that doesn't require an AFD at all. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Please, please do not encourage adding more to the convoluted nest of disambiguation pages already in existence on Wikipedia as a way of making a decision that should be made per Wikipedia policies/guidelines. GBYork 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — incomplete and unlikely to be finished, and unnecessary as per nomination. A disambig link isn't needed as the page isn't linked to by many pages, and doesn't have an obvious title (i.e. not something that I expect would be googled). Mike Peel 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, per the nom. Disclosure: I have worked some on the List of words having different meanings in British and American English which is mostly duplicated by the list under afd. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect this has been bugging me for some time. Dalf | Talk 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowclone

Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Please see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones — NMChico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The word gets a lot of G-hits (16,200 total; 322 of the first 1,000 unique), but I have to move for deletion 1) because the word (even as defined by the article) is a neologism coined 2.5 years ago, and 2) per WP:HOLE. -- Kicking222 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment citing WP:HOLE is a little unfortunate as "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground" is quite likely a snowclone of "I wouldn't know him from Adam" MeltBanana 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, nonsensical (or at the very least extremely hard to follow and basically without point. — NMChico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's really just a statement that there are popular phrases out there that often get spun into new variations (duh), and it tries to be fancy about it by expressing it in neo-algebraic terms. wikipediatrix 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per above reasons. SynergeticMaggot 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems well sourced beyond anything otherwise unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. This seems well sourced. It is confusing, but most of the math articles on wikipedia are way more confusing than this (I teach college statistics and even I can't understand most of them). Definitely seems notable and verifiable. Irongargoyle 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neologisms are not acceptable Wikipedia articles. But then, Badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, but this is more than some neologism article, it has plenty of reliable sourcing and is more than just the meaning of the word. WP:NEO is about as vague as you can get as a guideline, but this article seems to surpass what's expected for deletion there. As for my habits, I can point out hundreds of articles I don't "vote" keep on, so I'm not sure if that swipe is necessary or accurate. I only "vote" keep on what I believe should be kept, not "everything." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think that's precisely what WP:NEO says, Zoe. If neologisms are discussed as a phenomenon (and not merely used without discussion), they are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a new term, but it's been discussed or at least defined in the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as on NPR's Talk of the Nation and in a book reprinting essays from the linguistics blog in which the term first appeared. In Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms, the only two reasons given that articles on neologisms "may not be appropriate" are that they often lack reliable secondary sources, and are often no more than dictionary definitions. This goes beyond dictionary definition -- it's an article about the linguistic phenomenon the term was coined to describe -- and there are sources. Sounds like the article needs quite a bit of work to be clear to an encyclopedia audience, but that's not a reason to delete it. —Celithemis 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Doing the research, I've come to the same conclusion as Celithemis. The problems with neologisms that are relevant here are that the concepts that they embody are unverifiable and original research. The concept embodied by this neologism is verifiable (There is quite a lot of discussion of it to be found.), not original research (The concept having spread far beyond its original creator.), and there is plenty of source material to work from. However, I do wonder whether this is simply a new word for the existing concept of a cliché. ("Snowclones are the new clichés, dahling!") That's a matter of merger, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd vastly prefer to see this article merged into cliché than to stand alone. wikipediatrix 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article has already survived one (or was it two) AfD's and what went before AfDs already. I much agree with Celithemis. As for cliches, cliches don't change while snowclones do. Snowclones are relevant for translation-research as sometimes it is possible to translate it into a different snowclone in the target language, and if not possible the translation can't be direct and might even need a footnote. Kaleissin 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did those previous AfDs go? They didn't show up when I tagged the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, original research, non-notable. Try Urban Dictionary. Deltabeignet 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TJ Spyke 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. The term may be an acknowledged neologism, but since its adoption by linguists at the Language Log in 2004, it has been widely used, with over 15,000 Google entries. This article has been referenced around the internet, including:

• ScienceAdditiction.com
• CacophonyAndCoffee.blogspot.com
• Cuesta Library blog
• Tlogmer's Wikipedia Blog
• Media Resources for book Far from the Madding Gerund by linguists Mark Liberman & Geoffrey K. Pullum. --Leflyman^Talk 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Celithemis and Leflyman. hateless 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not convcinced mere novelty is the same as non-notability. For obvious reasons neologisms are going to tend to be non-notable, but then their articles can be deleted on that basis. The article itself doesn't look like original research either, it looks like it's a description of what went on at Language Log. Surely we're not going to require that every article be copied and pasted from somewhere else to avoid running afoul of WP:NOR.--♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NEO doesn't mean that newness alone is grounds for deletion, and if it does, then it needs to be considered a much more prominent Wikipedia policy. One of Wikipedia's natural advantages should be that it can document subjects more quickly than a top-down source could do. The suggestion that all newly coined terms belong in the Urban Dictionary is silly; this is a scholarly, non-humorous subject. Maybe a misunderstanding comes from the fact that some of the examples are irreverent, but these can be switched with more mainstream examples if somebody wants. Agree with the reasoning from Celithemis and Leflyman. IEdML 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.Jxg 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it may be a neologism, but it describes a clearly defined linguistic concept which definitely has its place in modern culture, particularly on the Internet. The idea it describes ought to have a name, and 'snowclone' seems to be the accepted one. I agree that it could use a rewrite to make it simpler and easier to understand, though. Terraxos 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. —Aristotle 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I really don't see what the issue is. --Iustinus 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Now frequently used among linguists. CRCulver 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there is some better name for the concept then rename the article, but it's a real article on a real subject. It would not be proper to delete an article for want of a name.Barticus88 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. Regarding WP:NEO, this is not a protologism, not a mere definition, and not original research, which are the reasons WP:NEO gives that a neologism-titled article may be undesirable. Rather, this is, per Barticus88, 'a real article on a real subject' that happens to have acquired a name only recently. Put it this way: Personal names may also be neologisms, but we don't exclude discussion of a person merely because said person has a name. Duh. eritain 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. Ruakh 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. —Nightstallion (?) 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. — Jéioosh 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a perfectly valid topic, for which "snowclone" is the most noteworthy term. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laction

Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• An Ardeltion (which is a neologism coined by me 15 seconds ago meaning "article for deletion"). Tonywalton  | Talk 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect to Japanese typographic symbols, since it's now mentioned there and the content here looks like original research. - Bobet 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onpu

As for this page, "Its use is in actuallity shrouded in mystery."♪ The onpu is mostly used by females, but also by males... and foreigners...? This is nonsense. Dekimasu 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment I think this needs to be looked at by an expert in the field. I found this listing of Onpu and Image:Onpu-no-bui-no-namae001.png at the commons as parts of a musical note. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It does indeed mean musical notes in Japanese, but the article is confusing. It will be interesting to see whether this can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to be significant to Japanese culture. Must be cleaned up. Themindset 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols and add the symbol to that article. Just say it's a musical note symbol. Fg2 10:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: the AfD tag was removed by a vandal and I have replaced it. Dekimasu 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (which I placed on the article's talk page days ago): "Yes, if you type "onpu" into your cell phone, it will give you a musical note. However, the actual meaning includes the dakuten, long mark, small つ, etc. It is crazy to make this an article about cell phones. If I type だな into my cell phone in hiragana, it will give me DKNY as the first choice; this doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about the meaning of "dana" in mass communications in Japan." Dekimasu 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: the AfD tag was removed by the same vandal for a second time and I have replaced it. Dekimasu 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: has now been removed four times by the same vandal using two IP addresses. Dekimasu 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. There are a grand total of zero sources cited in the article or this AfD, so it's off to Wiki-nirvana by virtue of WP:RS/WP:NOR alone. Sandstein 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sandstein. The article has been around long enough that if it were going to be cleaned up, it would have been by now. User:Angr 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice per Sandstein. I can't tell if this is a legitimate topic; if it is, then there can certainly be a well-sourced and well-written article about it. This is not it though. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added onpu to Japanese typographic symbols as I suggested earlier. Fg2 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols per Fg2. That's what this is. The listing there now contains as much information as this article. — Haeleth Talk 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols per Fg2. --Satori Son 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 merge. A merger always results in a redirect (to preserve page history). Petros471 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic

Dictionary definition Stlemur 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge to Wiktionary.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. Gazpacho 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Longest word in English and delete (or redirect because if anybody types that in they deserve to get to a page) - Yomangani^talk 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — and I guess redirect, even though it seems unlikely anyone would type this. JChap2007 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a very notable word - more than just dictionary definition. There are so few of these recognised "longest" words; it's not as if there are hundreds of articles made for them. A claimant to the longest word in the English language has a high degree of notability. At the moment it's a stub, yes, but I am sure it can be expanded to include the exact circumstances under which the word was first used, and to give a break-down of the component attributes of the water which comprise the sub-sections of the word. Hey, maybe I'll do this myself sometime: but give it a chance. EuroSong ^talk 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — per JChap2007 and Yomangani Martinp23 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Yomangani is right, if someone types that in, they definitely deserve to have some info about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroyencyclopediabrown (talk • contribs) . Jaedza 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Yomangani. May be good idea to include a pronunciation key for it where ever it may end up. Jaedza 05:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Dictionary definition, notable word. --Gray Porpoise 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• zomg keep JayW 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef, neologism, something made up in school one day back in the 18th-Century. Not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary; the reference to the AskOxford website states the word is made-up, and not in common use, and refers to the invention of such words as a "common verbal game". Yes, I see the irony in nominating a word invented in the 18th Century as neologism, but the fact someone has an old edition of the Guinness book is not a factor here. Tychocat 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Longest word in English and redirect. --Zoz (t) 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks just plain bogus, and even if genuine should be superceded by supercalifragilisticexpialidocious ;-) Chris CII 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• "Long" words are not rare: for example, every single protein sequence has a very long systematic name that is no more, and no less, a legitimate English word than this word. If this word can be attested to as signficant by multiple reliable, verifiable sources, merge to Longest word in English and redirect: otherwise, delete. -- The Anome 13:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete : According to Oxford Dictionnary[1], this is not the longest word in English (they think that chemical particles doesn't count). Lucasbfr 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Yomangani. I think the fact that one dictionary doesn't count it isn't a reason to merge. Daniel.Bryant 13:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus. -- Vary | Talk 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianese

WP:ISNOT, a dictionary, publisher of original thought, or a directory. This is a list of words Blessed, Fellowship, Mission, Ministry, and others without references. Each of these words has an article which defines it already. Car54 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of a distinctive "jargon" in a major religious group is significant. While the page may presently contain little other than common words, the social role of this jargon could be an important encyclopedic subject, quite apart from a simple "list of definitions"
  The term outside wiki: [http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=91http://www.arin.net/whois/

Whois] [2] [3] aaaaand...here are two books about it: [4] [5] DanB DanD 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weakest Keep On the surface appears to be a silly neologism, and I'm still not convinced it has much importance. It does appear to be utilised by a lot of different websites, though, and DanB DanD was able to site further usage. — NMChico24 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Documents a distinctive and culturally-relevant jargon. Rohirok 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of 'distinctive "jargon"' Wryspy 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Polari? Engrish? Cockney rhyming slang? Lunfardo? Slang#See_also? DanB DanD 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is more than a mere list of words with definitions. True, it lists examples, but it also discusses religious culture associated with the jargon, sociological implications and influence on popular culture. Also see the counterexamples to your arguments listed by DanB DanD above. Rohirok 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, as DanB DanD has cited outside usage – but I think the whole idea's pretty silly. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per references by DanB DanD, but remove OR elements of the list. Staecker 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep defintely a distinctive jargon. Carter 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• No one's going to use this search term, and frankly I feel the neologism "Christianese" has a very distinct POV. That said, there are certainly words used specifically by certain religious sects. Why not merge that information to articles (or sub-articles?) about those particular religions?Jacqui^★ 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think it's a slur on Christians, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the word is itself Christianese: it arose among evangelicals who feared their proselytizing was ineffective because they "speak a different language" from the people they're talking to. Anyway, the titles of many articles--the names of advocacy organizations and so on--express a PoV. DanB DanD 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wryspy, sources notwithstanding. It's a neologism. Gazpacho 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article needs to die for our sins. --Xrblsnggt 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Think about this as if this were a language. Chinese, a language of several dialects in China, has an article that redirects to the elements of that culture, the people, etc. It does not simply list words and meanings. Yet, this is worse because it defines english words, and english words that already have articles in a Christian category. C56C 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good solid article, but lose the lexicon. -- Visviva 10:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. "Christianese" is used most often in a POV sense or a humorous one, but the article is (apparently) broader. Something like List of Christian terminology or List of words and phrases in Christianity.--Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - needs work and closer sourcing but definitely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism, and a couple books do not convince me that it's a widely used one. Isomorphic 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ISNOT a lexicon. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is an example[6] from the Church Marketing Sucks blog. It's more than a neologism. The entry needs a clean up/destubbing, but it belongs in Wikipedia and with the name Christianese. Carter 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (reitterating previous vote to Keep)
• Keep This article isn't limited to a lexicon, it explains the cultural contexts as well. Borisblue 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. -- Vary | Talk 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fratch

Neologism, article states, "The term can be categorized as a neologism and its use is mostly confined to the mid-atlantic region of the United States," but this is unverifiable. Deprodded. Accurizer 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am working on finding verifiable uses of the term outside of conversation. Also, perhaps instead of a permanent deletion, transfer the article to Wiktionary? Claymoney 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of looking for "uses of the term", look for sources that readers can use to verify what the article says about fratches. Looking for uses of a word is what one does at Wiktionary, to demonstrate that a word satisfies the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Here, we want references, not quotations. Uncle G 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not Transwiki material. -- Visviva 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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.