Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinsenior

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quinsenior

Quinsenior (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Protologism. Zero google hits, zero google scholar hits. Weregerbil 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NFT was written for this kind of stuff. ~ trialsanderrors 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Really WAS made up in school. Throw this under the school bus. Tubezone 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Point well understood, however... "Wikipedia isn't a publisher of first instance. It isn't here to promote new things and spread new knowledge; it's here to collect, condense, and summarize what has already been promoted - and what has passed certain tests. Most encyclopedias are written this way. If you find yourself arguing that your Wikipedia article is necessary because no one else has written about your new invention yet, you're breaking the original research rule."

This has been previously published as a thesis, promoted and accepted by a scholastic committee, and was inserted to collect as part of list of colloquial terms and their history. Colloquialisms are covered as legitimate and because they are not part of a classical tradition does not disclude them from reality, or else pop culture and folk tradition would be disallowed. NateDsaint 10:09, Nov. 22 2006 (UTC)

That's all swell, but the phrase has to establish notability to be included. Zero ghits pretty much establishes non-notability, also see WP:NEO. Even if the word had notability, as a colloquialism, it probably ought to go into Wiktionary as a definition, not in the encyclopedia. The fact that the word is part of collection of obscure colloquialisms used in a school would seem to reinforce the WP:NFT argument to delete, albeit on a higher scholastic plane than that argument is typically used in. IOW, the standard applies whether it's made up in grad school and written in a thesis, or made up in kindergarten and written in crayon. Tubezone 07:17, 23 November 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.