Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimongering

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 of the debate was speedy deleted and protected from re-creation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimongering

Wikimedia is not a dictionary and this is a neologism anyway Malcolm Morley 08:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• WTF??? This got speedied a little too speedily for my taste. It's now marked with {{deletedpage}}, but no reason is given for why it was speedied. Maybe it was an obvious delete, but that's no excuse for breaking policy like that! I would like to bring this one up for deletion review. Blackcats 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and wikimongerer if it comes back, as neologisms with no evidence of use. Kappa 09:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Deleted and locked per comments on IRC. Page was a neologistic attack page. FCYTravis 09:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Much as I dislike bureaucracy, should conversations in IRC be allowed to trump the normal process? 24.71.91.173 09:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Normal process is that attack pages (and those not claiming any sort of notability) can be speedied. My fault for not leaving a reason when I deleted it. The terms get zero (yes, that's right, zero as in zip, zilch, none, nil, etc.) Google hits. A word that doesn't get a single Google hit isn't even a neologism. It's something someone made up in school one day. FCYTravis 10:02, 27 December 2005 (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.