Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipornia

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 delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipornia

Keep It!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.49.168 (talk • contribs).

'Keep itIt seems to me that if somebody really wanted to look at porn, they wouldn't go to anything Wikipedia. It's not harmful and should be kept up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.81.168.72 (talk • contribs).

Keep it. You can't seriously be considering this. I can think of no more gross an example of subjective morality's continued stranglehold on mass media than this insurrection into the collective free-knowledgebase that is Wikipedia. We've got issues on this website, and we don't need to be judging an ACCURATE, popular article when there are several incomplete, poorly written, and largely false articles existing on the site daily. The "neologisms" argument is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It denies the global community the ability to have its say in what information should be readily available to mass audiences, which is what Wikipedia was made for. Last time I checked, we're not Microsoft. This timid argument is ridiculous.

The idea of banning "Neologisms" is faulty policy to begin with, and that's what this debate boils down to. The gap between 'current' neologisms and legitimate terms is only bridged by apparent common usage. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia is special for many reasons, not least of which is its ability to disperse new--yes, even BRAND new--information to a large, international audience. To deny that Wikipedia facilitates society in this exciting learning process is to depreciate our own website, and self-impose a lower standard of value and influence on society than traditional media. We're peeing on our own feet, folks.

This article strikes at the heart of the faulty "Neologism" policy. We can't just say "wait we don't allow these because we say so," if it appears as though there is a legitimate reason for the policy ITSELF to be reviewed, which I believe is the real issue here. If you expel the ability of Wikipedia to help new concepts make it as quickly as possible into the marketplace of ideas, you're destroying what makes this site unique and extremely important.

Comment: Things are not notable because they are on Wikipedia; things are on Wikipedia because they are notable. --Andy Saunders 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so "Wikipornia" isn't exactly the most important and valiant example of the flaws inherent in the "Neologisms" policy; that DOESN'T mean that the flaws don't exist. If you outlaw the Wiki-community's ability to help new concepts come to the forefront, you're stunting the vast potential of Wikipedia, and railing against the very concept behind the internet itself.

If we decide to delete this, and other similar articles, I wish you good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't we just publish a book if we want to exclude the idea of timeliness, completion, community, and open-source R/evolution that began this site? [User:68.22.241.142|68.22.241.142] 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey

KEEP It....if anything its only bringing more people to the wonders of wikipedia -Me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.55.178.116 (talk • contribs).

Would you take the word penis out of the dictionary? It's no worse than what children learn in human sexuality which is an extremely common course lately. In fact, in the class, children see much worse than this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.213.222 (talk • contribs).

Keep it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.126.148 (talk • contribs).

"Keep it! It can't go undocumented just because you find it inappropriate!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.48.34 (talk • contribs).

Keep this. Dont be like China.

KEEP it. The world can't be hurt by having too many entries into Wikipedia!!

Keep it. Only because it's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.79.15 (talk • contribs).

Keep it! You've gotta keep it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.160.142.29 (talk • contribs).

Delete Strong Delete as neologism and not terribly encyclopedic at that. Fightindaman 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it! This is a valid entry, but it definately needs to be touched up and made better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs).

• Keep it!: I think the point is coming accross quite well. If Wikipedia needs to make a disclaimer because hundreds of people...WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS WORD, are fighting for it to be kept, it is worthy of being up here. There are "encyclopedic entries" where the definition says it is a neologism and aren't up for deletion. WIKIPORNIA is also mentioned in the WIKIapproved page for College Humor. How could moderators allow such a page to exist if they descripe wikipornia in it? Because it is widely accepted...--Onestudlyomelet 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hundreds of people who would never have shown up here if not for a College Humor hotlink directing them to, and hundreds of people who will probably never contribute to this project again after this AfD is decided. I could write something non-encyclopedic about Jeopardy! wagering, post it, and then post on the show's message boards to get everyone to support my point vociferously when it comes up for AfD. But that wouldn't be right. -- Andy Saunders 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it!: How about deleting and correcting the idiotic and merely incorrect articles you already have before witch-hunting ones that don't meet YOUR particular set of moral standards. Just because it represents an amusing aspect of youth culture does not prevent it being interesting, accurate and insightful. Save Wikipornia! ~ Forbie
• Keep it!: IMO kids have been snickering at the vagina entry of an encylopedia for years, its just now on the internet, no difference ~ TymZero

• Delete as per nom --Bugturd Talk 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Censoring the Wikipedia? You are better than that? Arent you? Did we just step in to Google ChinA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.195.135 (talk • contribs).

The phrases "laser," "homophobia," and "genocide" were all neologisms. Source Wikipedia.Indeed this word is soon to become a cultural phenomenon as Collegehumor, and Wikipedia obtain thousands of unique hits every day. Let it also be known, that because there is little information surrounding the phrase "Wikipedia" that is the only reason he can claim the allegations that it is "not terribly encyclopedic." As you all know, users are enabled to add information they deem necessary, therefore addition to this definition will occur over time. This article should NOT be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs).

• Comment: The comparison is laughable at best.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Fightindaman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Other words that caught on after being neologisms: Blog and Spam. Please do check those wikipedia pages out. I'm sure they are in existence.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Should the term become widely used, I would see no problem with adding it. However at the present time, it is not widely used. Thus, Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. --Hansnesse 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• The phrases "laser," "homophobia," and "genocide" were all neologisms. Note the past-tense verb "were". Does that apply to the term under discussion? No? Present tense? Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • FREE CLUE: The only thing that bridges the gap between "were" and "are" is, as you all keep screaming about, COMMON USAGE. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia promotes common usage and is a place to LEARN, not a place to assimilate. The neologism argument is flawed.

• Comment: You cite Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms and here is a quote from that page: "Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits." It seems I meet thier demands quite clearly as stated even in the definition. This is a word that has been seen by literally tens of thousands of people, and I'm very sure that its addition is quite necessary. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Free clue: people here aren't impressed by amateur legalisms; they ARE impressed by actual evidence. Try that. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, neologism and a self reference -- Astrokey44|talk 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no self reference in the definition. I only saw it on collegehumor. I am in no way affiliated with them. And on the neologism note I make myself perfectly clear that I meet the standards by citing the hits from many non-collegehumor pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 January 2006.}
  • "I meet the standards"? A little Freudian slip, there. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Upon further research, "wikipornia" is even cited by others than myself on this very website. Bottom of Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 1:05, 31 January 2006.
  • What part of "no self-references" was unclear? And please SIGN YOUR POSTS. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to agree this is not a WP:SELF problem (and if it was, I don't think such is basis for deletion, only a rewrite). To quote the policy, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." I think if everyone and their mother used this term (or for instance, newspapers) then there would be no problem. As it is, however, it is a new idea and needs to gain popularity before being included. Existing on google is quite different from being widely used (as might be demonstrated via google). That is how I read it at least. Thus I claim it is a relatively unused neologism and should not be included as such. --Hansnesse 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• The phrases "peckay," "EJ" and "schrank" were all neologisms. Let's check Wikipedia--oh no!!. Delete. —rodii 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Make that Strong Delete. All you outraged collegehumor people--please realize you haven't made much of a case here, because you haven't really based your arguments on any understanding of how Wikipedia works, just this generalized sense of "oh noes! mean wikipeople hates our word!" It just won't wash. —rodii 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Don't forget the arguments that the horde of anons who have never edited before and never will again are the ones who really know what wikipedia is about, and that they are the ones defending its true principles. Fightindaman 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I browse CH all the time and have never heard of it. --Andy Saunders 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And this vote changes to very very strong delete thanks to the socks. -- Andy Saunders 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Additional comment: I just searched CH personally for "Wikipornia" and found no hits. --Andy Saunders 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It only shows up in the link section. Search through the recent link archives and you'll find a couple examples of it. Fightindaman 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And because it shows up a couple of times in CH Hotlinks it's suddenly become encyclopedic? I think not. --Andy Saunders 05:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • RELAX: And because it shows up a couple of times in CH Hotlinks it suddenly DOESN'T exist? Take your "neologism" morality (read: sexy slang) and stick it where it belongs: your own home.68.22.241.142 12:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey

• • • • • Comment: I agree. That's why I nominated it for deletion. [User:Fightindaman|Fightindaman]] 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Heh. For some reason I thought you were on the Keep side. My bad. -- Andy Saunders 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for utter idiocy. --Agamemnon2 10:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Well it is clear that the majority has spoken. Have fun not being able to research wikipornia when your professors tell you to do a paper on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: I wouldn't use Wikipedia on its own to research any topic, let alone something as tenuous as Wikipornia. --Andy Saunders 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also: WP:NOT a democracy. "Majority" means nothing. "Consensus" does. Andy Saunders 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Promise. As a professor, I hereby solemnly promise never to assign research on wikipornia to my students. —rodii 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:It clearly meets the requirements and is accurate. Leave it.* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.209.254 (talk • contribs).
• Comment:Keep it, if there is Manscaping there should be Wikipornia Reefsurfer226 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:To the people who are wanting to delete it, what harm is the word causing you? It is obviously something at least some people are interested in reading information about; therefore, it should simply be left alone. Aren't there bigger fish to fry? I think so. I hope I helped you gain some insight on your life and a realization that you could be caring about something a bit more necessary. 01:34, 1 February 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.15.134.38 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Keep it - And make it a section of Wikipedia. It is accurate and has been mentioned quite a bit on CH.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.168.65 (talk • contribs).

• Comment: It is a word that is greatly growing in usage and therefore should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.196.64.181 (talk • contribs).
• Comment:Keep it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.136.182.162 (talk • contribs).

• CommentKeep it i like porn and i like learning thats all, and if i can look at porn a learn about the baby maker parts of women nice. dpaine1979
• Comment:Keep it, why not? censroship here? surely not (heres looking at you google) 81.77.224.38 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There's a link on Collegehumor.com entitled "save wikipornia" today. All of these unsigned votes are probably directed from there. NOTE THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. SIMPLY COMING HERE AND TYPING KEEP WILL NOT ENSURE THAT IT GETS KEPT. Fightindaman 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: LOL...this last comment is funny...how about this...THIS IS NOT A TOTALITARIAN REGIME!!! SIMPLY TYPING IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON OTHERS!!!...that being said, what's the big fuss? There certainly are more ridiculous pages on here...see "Teabagging" or "Rusty Trombone" for examples...71.249.76.83 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Matthew Ruiz

• Comment. What makes me laugh is all these people coming here to passionately vote Comment. You're making a strong case for Comment there, guys. I can't wait to see the closing admin say "The result of the debate was Comment". —rodii 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. When it's no longer neo-, then we can list it. Powers 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, not encyclopedic or notable. Most suited for urbandictionary. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Quote: "Wikipedia articles are not [...] a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." If we must keep it, fold it into the CollegeHumor article. And a note to everyone who's crowing about censorship: the deletion of this article is not censorship, it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia, like a dissertation on Gothe doesn't belong in Playboy. Basseq 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be some confusion as to the nomination. I see no one thus far arguing for removal because of morality. Note that removal for the protection of minors is against policy (See this policy), however deletion because the word is a neologism is consistant (in my view at least) with its neologism policy. This is one of many neologisms (hundreds, if not thousands) that have been nominated for deletion. I support a deletion as it is a neologism. --Hansnesse 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. --Goobergunch|? 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it! neologisms shouldn't be universally banned because if they become colloquialism part of the beauty of wiki is that people can look up anything. stop being snobs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.241.81 (talk • contribs).

• Keep it It is a new word. There has been alot of discussion today about this subject. Therefore it exists and should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.91.23 (talk • contribs).

• Delete I vote for deletion. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Anyways, this isn't popular slang at all. "Thousands upon thousands" being familiar with the term is maybe a few thousand people out of "millions upon millions" that speak English. And anyway, like the article says, this term was coined and used about 5 times on Collegehumor.com. Wikipedia does not and should not have articles about inside jokes or slang terms used by every single website's userbase on the web. It's simply unrealistic. Articles about internet subculture are valid articles (think 1337) but Wikipornia is not common enough to merit having its own article. Used 5 times on one website? Please. The only reason this is being debated is because CollegeHumor linked to this article requesting users to "Save Wikipornia." TheDapperDan 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason not to keep this article. Everyone here citing Wikipedia's "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." Needs to read the next sentence of that policy. The next sentence says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." This article, although is a slang term, is not a guide on how this term is to be used, but rather an explanation of the term itself, which is Wikipedia worthy, because it explains a phenomena, not mearly a straight dictionary word with a meaning and definition. Therefore, I vote Keep. Drlecter491 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as a phenomenon. Right now it's just a silly word someone made up. If it becomes a phenomenon, then we can write an article on it. Powers 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it As a valid current phenomenon, Wikipornia should be kept as an entry to continue with the modernity of Wikipedia. If it is in use in the public domain, there should be no reason to delete it.

• Keep it Do not become totalitarian. Just because views towards your website are not favorable or may jest you does not mean they are not newsworthy or important for people to be able to find information about. Your website is about providing people as much information about a given subject.

• Delete as neologism, and one invented less than 2 months ago at that. To be truly objective about this apparently emotional vote: delete this article, and wait 6 months later, and see if the term is in widespread use. If it is, then maybe it merits an entry in Wikipedia, otherwise, no.—Tetracube 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with keeping it? It is as much a word as "yo" and "dawg". Grow up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.185.65 (talk • contribs).

As I understand it, the whole idea of Wikipedia is to be a sort of dictionary that evolves as our language does, faster than any Websters or Encyclopedia could. If a word is being used and was not made up to hurt someone, where is the problem? Anyone who is offended by this sort of thing should probably type something else into google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.154.223 (talk • contribs).

• • Three cheers for this poster. 68.22.241.142 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)MadCasey

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And again, as has already been stated, nobody is saying that this shoudl be deleted because they are offended by it. It is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fightindaman 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of, the people voting for Delete aren't doing it 'cos they're offended. They're voting Delete 'cos this article isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Stop with the knee-jerk reactions already.—Tetracube 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember my friends and I checking out "encyclipornia" when I was a kid. We were innovators! KEEP IT!-yurmom

• Delete. To everybody from collegehumor.com and LUELinks, chill. Wikipedia's rules say that among other things, articles on neologisms are not allowed. Slang is fine when it enters general usage, but new words or phrases that are not a part of common usage are not. For example, we have articles on jazz and skyscrapers, but not Longcat or RICK JAMES, BITCH! because these memes are not in common usage. I fail to see how this word is encyclopaedic. - CorbinSimpson 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Bullshit. That Neologism "rule" is a Nazi loophole designed to keep out sexually explicit language and depictions of "immoral" actions, such as Teabagging. If we delete this article, good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't you just publish a damn book if you want to exclude the idea of R/evolution and community that began this site.

Ahem: Teabagging. We don't want to exclude "R/evolution and community." The objective is not to create an encyclopedia that is boring, linear, and out of date. We just have a high threshhold for new material. When a word becomes well-established (with, in my opinion, Teabagging being right about at the threshhold), we include it. We can't include every little thing someone makes up -- it's not feasible, and other sites (such as Urban Dictionary) cover that niche sufficiently. When "Wikipornia" becomes as widely known as "Teabagging," we'll add it. Powers 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. Belongs somewhere else, as mentioned, such as UrbanDictionary.com. Not on Wikipedia. onishenko

• Keep Wikipedia is a continously evolving format. It offers more than standard encyclopedias because it offers certain, less scholarly points of view than say Britannica would. You get a more complete sense of a subject through Wikipedia, rather than be restricted by select facts that are approved by a select community. I believe that by censoring popular trends in culture because "they are more fitted for urbandictionary.com" you are only depriving Wikipedia of one of its inherent advantages over standard encyclopedias. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be a factual, first-stop resource, but also has the opportunity to supplement the facts with popular opinions, trends, and other less tangible, shifting elements of culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs).

• Thank You As the creator of this much controversial article, I would like to thank those who have supported the upkeep of not only the word "wikipornia" remaining in wikipedia, but the integrity of wikipedia itself. Whether or not this article will stay has everything to do with the consensus, and we are making it clear, with valid arguments nonetheless, that this is a worthy article. Dirty Sanchez, Rusty Trombone, Cumfart, Creampie, and even ideepthroat...if wikipornia is more of a neologism than those, I believe WIKIPEDIA will lose a lot of users, both new and old. Ahhh I love work. --Onestudlyomelet 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• The strongest possible delete followed by a salting of the earth so nothing ever grows again. I have the utmost faith in the closing administrator to discount the torrent of sockpuppet votes. --keepsleeping slack off! 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lot's of arguments here (for and against), but when you sift through it all it's non-notable +/- neologism. Ifnord 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. Kusma (討論) 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:BALLS ("the phrase is still in its early days") and as nn neologism. --Mgreenbe 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Dsol 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Oddly Enough, that link goes to a page explaining that the phrase either has to be 'verifiable' or not to plainly obvious. No one can say that "wikipornia" is unknown or that its existence can't be verified. --Onestudlyomelet 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you are refering to the WP:BALLS link, that one goes to a policy page. Wikipornia is not, to the best of my knowedge, policy (nor is WP:BALLS, for that matter, an article in the encyclopedia). --Hansnesse 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I really don't understand why people don't want to keep this entry. People are citing two policies which have no baring on this entry at all. The "Wikipedia is not 'A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.'" states specifically that the artical should not deal with the usage of the slang, not that the article should not be about a slang term itself. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." The article makes no mention of the idea that slang terms themselves cannot have an article.

The citing of WP:BALLS is simply rediculous, because the article itself states that it is NOT Wikipedia policy. The policy which states that Wikipedia can not be used to publish original research cities that coining a neologism in an article is a way of establishing that the article is original, and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. AGAIN, the policy does not specifically ban neologisms, and because this article is not a reasearch paper, or an attempt to publish any kind of theory, data, etc, as stated on the Policy page about no original research. Therefore, it doesn't fall into that catagory, and the fact that it may be a "new" word doesn't mean it's excluded because it does not pertain to new reasearch. There is a "content guide" which seeks to have users aviod neologisms, "unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data or, at the least, search engine hits." As the wikipornia article itself states, there are google hits pertaining to the word.

Many people also are saying that it's too new and/or not widely used enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. My question to them is, at what point does it become old enough, or widely used enough to be deemed Wikipedia worthy. If anything this article should be kept because it pertains to something that exists on Wikipedia. It is not a straigh dictionary definition, nor is something not noted or unworthy. The fact that so many people have visited this page and put in their two cents (rightly or not) shows that this article is well known and widely used. I urge the administrators to keep this because it is an example of what is best about Wikipedia: the ability to evolve and be crafted from the ideas of its users. Drlecter491 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO Specifically states

In many cases, neologisms get deleted. Protologisms are almost always deleted. It could be via speedy deletion or the Articles for deletion process.

But this is not a court of law, and although citing policy is a good idea, we should always be sure to ignore all rules (see also this policy). There are dozens if not hundreds of neologisms up for deletion at the present moment. We have the neologism policy (and similar policies) because we are building an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, not a phrase book, certainly not a free for all content host. This is undeniably a neologism. It is a routine deletion, one of more than two hundred nominated per day (and this is nothing new). It is wonderful that so many people have taken an interest in Wikipedia, and I hope they stay. But we can not turn Wikipedia into a host for every person with access to the web to post their ideas. If "wikipornia" becomes commonly used (think thousands of google hits), then it should be included. But until then, we leave it (and the thousands of words like it) out. --Hansnesse 01:11, 4 February 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.