Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neophone

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 Already deleted earlier. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neophone

Neophone is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term. Nothing cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - for my part, all I can tell is that the article's creator follows the usual pattern that is seen in hoax articles. The nominator here appears to have some pretty substantial knowledge of linguistics. I hesitate to vote this far outside my expertise, but if I had to choose, it'd probably be delete. My Alt Account 07:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources. I've looked for some myself, and like Aeusoes1 I cannot find any. The author, Nimic86 (talk • contribs), asserts on Talk:Neophone that "There's always plenty of room for brand new terms which serve perfectly useful purposes.". Wikipedia isn't for promoting brand new linguistics concepts that one has just made up. original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - based on my new understanding that even the article's author admits this term is made up. This clears things up nicely. I'd previously planned on abstaining due to my ignorance of linguistics. My Alt Account 14:53, 11 September 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.