Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esquivalience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esquivalience

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

  • And apparently a made-up one at that? Delete. Friday (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't this be speedied? Delete. --Blackcap | talk 21:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. feydey 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amren (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Might be worth redirecting to Nihilartikel and adding a note there, since it is one... Shimgray 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added an entry on "Esquivalience" to Nihilartikel, so redirect. Shimgray 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • God, I hadn't realized that it actually existed. So that it's here for everyone to see, this is what's said on Nihilartikel:
"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."
I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Actually, I think it would be best just to make an "other cases" section on the Nihilarikel article and add in both examples from the Esq. article. I'm changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel Wesman83 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Google. Paul Klenk 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting and notable. Thatdog 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- encyclopedic, notable, interesting... --Mysidia (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as interesting, wellwritten article. I wonder what Wkipedia's equivalent is :>)Capitalistroadster 04:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a Nihilartikel. We have a page full of examples; Wikipedia's had at least two known cases added by users, those being San Serriffe and Uqbar. Both are now corrected. There's also a lot of cases of people adding fictional articles deliberately as "tests", which is strongly discouraged; keep an eye on VfD and you see a few. Shimgray 14:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's an interesting topic Actually, Redirect to Nihilartikel Halo 10:47, 28 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.