Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aploximodoais

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. --Coredesat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aploximodoais

Aploximodoais (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Possible hoax. I can find no mention of this term. Joyous! | Talk 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely a hoax. "J. Porter Tash", "Porter Tash", and "Essae IIV" all return the gold medal of zero Google hits whatsoever. "Principia Malum Debello" returns only this WP article, as does "Revelatio Decaratio". And that doesn't even address that none of these purported titles are particularly literate Latin, and that the word itself is etymologically unlikely, to say the least (-oai- is an incredibly unlikely letter sequence in either Latin or English). Serpent's Choice 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• The term is not in my Webster's Ninth Collegiate dictionary nor in any of the on-line dictionaries I consulted. It shows zero non-Wikipedia google hits. As Serpent points out, the alleged sources are dubious and, so far, unverified. The opening paragraph referencing "an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author" is particularly suspicious. Unless this can be definitively sourced by the end of the discussion period, delete as a hoax. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, but alas, not amusing enough for BJAODN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per hoax. "Aploximodoais" is apparently only the name of a myspace user. Static Universe 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the worst kind of hoax- a hoax with hoax sources. There should be a speedy delete criteria that this can fall under... J Milburn 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JuJube. "The aploximodoais terms... are involving wolves, alligartos, and the fictional chimera"?? Fvasconcellos 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy Keep - I would like to change my vote to KEEP after seeing the above. I, personally, was unaware of the Dyer Critique, but I will definitely add it to me research. Other words with 'OAI' halloaing, hilloaing, holloaing, hulloaing, psoai, stoai, also please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_English_words Below is my original posting: I wrote this article. While I do have the sources in my library, (old, dry books that are on the verge of disintigrating, quite sadly) and do not question the existence of the word myself, I admit that what I cannot meet is Wikipedia's standards of verifiability (but I see that others have now added verifiable sources). My books cannot be scanned, due to their fragility, and I have made countless efforts to photograph the pages, but no amount of lighting, or steadying can capture the characters properly. However, as for issues you have noted in this article: I myself have been trying to track down these authors, but to no avail. I can be quite certain these books are from the 1700s, as they meet the criteria for dating books of this time, however the authors themselves are difficult to trace. I believe that since they may, themselves, have been dealing with Black Magic or writing about it, they may have either have written under pen-names, or in other cases were ordinary, non-authoring citizens. As for the 'an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author' I agree, that it sounds quite suspicious, and my only explanation is that, to my embarassment, I have an original, but partial manuscript which I have dated to be from the early 1700s. Unfortunatly, I cannot find mention or clue of the author, or to the piece itself. Finally, the alligarto was my own typographical error, and the chimera is a mythical animal mentioned in philosophical pieces (Descartes' Meditiations comes to mind). Scientists have since named a certain biological anamoly 'Chimera' due to the original mythical meaning. I am, myself, writing on a book that will be about 'aploximodoais', and other such words that had once appeared in texts, but then ceased to exist. Perhaps then, I will try to change this article, as it will then have a verifiable source, though the source would be myself. I should also note, I am not affiliated with the MySpace user account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

  I wanted to take a closer look at the -oai- vowel grouping also. Of the six words provided above, four are alternate spellings of hallooing (present participles of halloo, to call on hunting dogs), one is a valid plural of psoas, and one is an improperly formed plural of stoa (which could allow stoas or stoae, but not stoai). Regardless, the term under discussion is not formed from either the addition of the present participle -ing nor from the pluralization of -as to -ai. I cannot envision any etymology that would permit this term. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I myself have seen this word in a critique of Dyer. I have edited the main article page accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.153.9 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2007.
• Keep I'm a graduate student at the University of Toronto, and I have come across the word 'Aploximodoais' myself. The exact source I am unsure of (I'll have to do some digging around to find out where I saw it, but it was in the stacks of one the libraries, one of the more sensitive materials, I'm sure. I'll try finding the book when I get a free moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.135.248 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2007.
• Comment regarding the most recently added "source". It is no better than the rest. Although "Nathan ben Saddi"'s Chronicle of the Kings of England is a real work (albeit published after the 1739 date given), the quoted text is mysteriously elusive. Despite the fact that this public domain work is readily available online, these two Google searches for distinctive phrases from the purported quote return nothing at all.[1][2] In fact, Google shows no intersection at all between that work and John Dyer.[3] It bears note that the only non-blog (and only 2 or 3 of those!), non-mirror use of this word I've been able to find anywhere is from a USENET post citing WP content.[4] Any effort to demonstrate that this word has ever been used, in any legitimate source, anywhere, is going to require a precise reference. "Unsure" sources, "unpublished manuscript[s]", and "sensitive materials" somewhere in a library (especially ones that cannot be scanned or photographed and that no other scholars seem to have heard of) simply do not meet the needs of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable content from reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 05:51, 23 January 2007 (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.