Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialasation

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 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denialasation

In its present form this may be speedable under g1, but when I prodded it read as a dicdef, and at that, of a neologism, given zero Google hits [1]. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have guideline against neologisms, and if those don't fit, and this is not nonsense, then it appears to be original research.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — no ghits. neologism. Dionyseus 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above, but I don't think its speedy-able. will381796 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Just from the title it sounds like a neologism. Maybe Urban Dictionary will take it. Daniel Case 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rugged, all-terrain delete (I'm tired of "strong", I suppose). This gibberish is actually rather amusing. Was it perhaps written by Mark V Shaney with a spelling impediment? For surely the writer mentersay "denialisation". Moreover, he/she writes: "Therefore an example of deniasation...." -- Hoary 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, I thought the author might have meant that spelling simply based on the commonality of isation in similarly constructed words. That also Googled with zero results.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—Editor is new and contributed several other articles which, although showing signs of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and less than thorough research, were in fact credible material. I'll withhold my position for several days to see if he can come forward with references or a basis for this article. That said, it does look suspiciously like a neologism. Williamborg (Bill) 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment.Comments taken on board this is neologism (as all new words are) for a new phenomenon (post piper alpha and the deregulation of Pressure Integrity regulation)

During a large recent oil spill in the Artic BP blamed corrosion as the root cause. After much International debate on the National association of Corrosion Engineers (USA) NACE Corrosion Network" <nace@nacecorrosionnetwork.com> the true root cause was belived not to be corrosion but short term greed hence Denialasation. If the word is offensive then delete but I am sure that it will be used in the future by Corrosion Engineers for this worrying phenomenon and used in future technical papers. Sorry for the spelling impediment (I agree) I do suffer from dyslexia but try hard to correct mistakes. Not gibberish but I take the point for the move to the urban dictionary, maybe it has to reside there until in common use. Definately Not Denialisation. I will leave the coucil of elders to decide its fate.

• Delete neologism in the face! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 22:23, 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.