Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Concerns regarding the verifiability of this term were never adequately answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exicornt

Neologism, perhaps? I get 0 google hits for "exicornt". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP: Let's leave it alone. Not every single word in the dictionary can be found on Google or any search engine.—EddieSegoura (talk)
    • Please read WP:NOR, and WP:V, which talk about how all the facts on Wikipedia have to be from verifiable sources. It doesn't have to be online, but it's unlikely a real term like this wouldn't show up at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The term we use is new. Consider that words like [blog] or [podcasting] didn't exist back a few years ago. I created a page the for term [diamond crossover] so You'll get an idea as to what we're talking about. —EddieSegoura (talk) 6:57 PM, 22 November 2005 (EST)
        • You should do some research and find out what this sort of switch is really called. Railroad switch might be a good place to start looking. Wikipedia had rules against using terms that are new and not in common use yet. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms explains that in more detail. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The article clearly states the other terms used for the switch. Trust Me, I knew what I was doing when I created this page. I assume You know nothing about the term and theirfore You requested a deletion. —EddieSegoura (talk) 7:21 PM, November 22, 2005 (EST)
            • We can't just trust you, it has to be verifiable. If it's not on Google, and you can't verify its existance some other way, then it should be deleted. —Cleared as filed. 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
              • This page now appears as Google search results of Exicornt. EddieSegoura 03:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
                • That doesn't really matter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Eddie, do you really think that counts as a reference? Get real. This discussion is the only Google hit on the word. Please try to understand this: You can change half the Delete votes here to Keep if if you'll just provide a reference. That's all you have to do! And if you can't do it, you have no grounds to insist on this article being here. It's as simple as that. And STOP EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS AND VOTES! WE DON'T DO THAT HERE! TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Patience, TCC. I have a refenence. I just have to scan the page and upload it. I will try to get to a scanner and have it done by tomorrow night. --EddieSegoura 13:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Eddie, if you have some kind of reference, just post it already. Stop yacking about it and do it. Most of us would change our votes if you would verify and source it. As it is, you're running out of time. Either put up some sources, or let it go. Bringing all these puppets in to back you up is only hurting your cause. Also, pronouns like "you" and "me" are not capitalised unless they start a sentence. Stop editing other people's writing to make them capped when they shouldn't be. Sarah Ewart 22:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is a real term merge and redirect into railroad switch. I don't think there is enough information to warrant a separate article. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing no evidence that this a real term. Delete and don't redirect. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bunchofgrapes unless a verified source is found then merge. -SCEhardT 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reference can be found. If so, merge into railroad switch. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Strong Delete. Per article creator below, this is just a local slang term, used by a very small group of people, not notable, and not worth anything but a dictdef in a slang dictionary in any event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge into railroad switch. This page should redirect users to that page. Third Rail 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC) {User's first edits were to this page.}
This account appears to be a sockpuppet of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs). See Talk:Lists of tropical cyclone names/archive1 for more info. --Viriditas 06:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've seen Viriditas post nonsense about sockpuppets on other pages, too. --EddieSegoura 1:36 AM, 23 November 2005 (EST)
Excuse me, but just because i voted here doesn't i should be suspected of being another user -- Third Rail 20:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Your name is Eddie Segoura. --Viriditas 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

*Merge into Railroad switch but don't use the word "exicornt" to describe it. I think the material is valid, just the name is not. -LichYoshi 04:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC) See my revised vote below in this thread. LichYoshi 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Just a note: this kind of switch is already mentioned in railroad switch , and the illustration appears right next to the TOC. The caption calls it a "scissors crossover". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that! Good to know. I've moved Diamond crossover (which Eddie had created basically as a duplicate of Exicornt) to Scissors crossover; the redirect that created from Diamond crossover to Scissors crossover seems like an OK thing. I've also linked to Scissors crossover from the caption in railroad switch. All the information about "Exicornts" is also in the Scissors crossover article, where it seems to belong, so I'd urge delete votes for Exicornt. I'm skeptical that a reference is going to turn up showing "Exicornt" as another term for a Scissors crossing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Delete If it's already all there, then surely we don't need a term from someone (or some very, very small, very local non-notable group)'s personal vocabulary. Next thing you know we'll have pages called Whatchamecallit paraphrasing Whosywhatsit paraphrasing Eekopalorko. Non-verifiable, and if Mr Segoura (or whatever his real name is) is the only person or a spokesman for the only group that uses this non-notable term, then I'd consider it Original Research. -LichYoshi 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I assume You never heard of the word before, LichYoshi. I certainly wouldn't post a topic on a word that has no meaning (though everyone voting to delete the page thinks that way). I have a reference, but it's in a book and I need to scan the page. -- EddieSegoura 14:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
            • No Eddie, you don't need to scan the page. You need to give us a standard bibliographical reference, preferably with page numbers. No scanning required, and you can't host such a scan on Wikipedia anyway. It'd be a copyright violation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
            • No, I have not heard of the word "exicornt" before because it is obviously very localised and perhaps only spoken by you and your closest compatriots given that other people here, including (verifiably) other Wikipedians, especially transport-interested ones, are siding with the delete camp. We would be willing to include the page if you could verify it, which is why we need the bibliographical references for this book you claim it's in. If you can provide these references and these references can be verified, I would be more than happy to change my vote to "Keep". However, I'm sure I can speak for many fellow people on this thread that I find it suspicious you are not giving an explicit bibliographical reference, which is far easier than a scan (which turns out to be against the rules anyway). As it turns out, the term doesn't appear in the cited website. I suspect you might be clutching at straws to keep this article here. Those straws are breaking fast. -LichYoshi 10:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't need to scan anymore. As I mentioned below, a better page Crossover (rail) was recently created and rewritten, making Exicornt page is obsolete. I'm happy with the new page, and wouldn't mind the old pages being deleted as of this point. -- EddieSegoura 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bunchofgrapes. —Cleared as filed. 04:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    An Exicornt, Scissors crossover, double crossover, and diamond crossover are all the same thing. Deleting the page outright would only result in the page being reposted and deleted again and again, since another user might decide to put it back up. I think it make more sense to merge this page and any reference to Exicornt be redirected to the railroad switch page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.54.11 (talk • contribs) This account belongs to EddieSegoura (talk · contribs).
    Well, as long as it's a neologism, we can keep on deleting if that's the result of the AFD. —Cleared as filed. 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    Questions: 1. How long does this vote last? 2. Since half the people want delete and half the people want to keep, let's merge it and simply redirect users who refer to Exicornt to the newly created Scissors crossover page. I use the term Exicornt because it's a one-word nickname and it require less keystrokes with I write in down instead of writing Crossover. Neologisim is a meaningless definitionless word.
    Just like Exicornt. And the vote lasts 5 days. —Cleared as filed. 05:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    Wait... Are you saying you made this word up yourself? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm creating a page for a term we use.
Who is "we"? You and your family? The folks on your usual subway platform? Your drinking buddies? Everyone in Brooklyn? Has anyone ever written it down? Where can we find it if they did? And if not, how do you know how it's spelled? And again, it's dirty pool to change someone else's comments. Don't do it. You're applying for admin status again. Do you honestly think this behavior is going to recommend you, and with an admin directly involved in this discussion to see what you're doing? TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he is saying that. See also: Talk:Lists of tropical cyclone names/archive1. He's doing the same thing over there. --Viriditas 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't expect people to believe I own all those accounts on that "troll" list you decided to make.
You've used four of them on this page, alone. --Viriditas 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Every time You say I used more then one account I'm going to say I didn't (since none of those other names logged on here). So please stop. 69.112.54.11 09:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The "names" are logged in the edit history. So far, they include: 69.112.54.11 (talk · contribs), EddieSegoura (talk · contribs), Third Rail (talk · contribs), and 24.105.138.40 (talk · contribs). --Viriditas 09:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstand Me. I've used that term long before I created the page to describe such switches when talking about subway lines. Since only a few people (and not My friends or My family but people that know subway terminology. I felt it was necessary to create this page so the reader knows exactly what I am talking about when I use the word. I didn't create this page in bad faith, or to drive people crazy and have people talk about whether or not we should keep the page or delete it. Consider this, a few years ago, hardly anyone knew what a "blog" was. Today people say "blog" instead of "journal" because someone came along and defined the word. It's the same with this word.—EddieSegoura (talk) 4:26 AM, November 23, 2005 (EST)
I don't think anyone has misunderstood you. Since you have not learned anything about Wikipedia from the first day you began editing (even though you claim to have been editing under other IP addresses for months), one can only conclude that you are trolling. --Viriditas 09:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Scissors crossover. As a crazy 'Merkan, I'm more familiar with the term "double crossover" than what has been stated so far, but since we've got a "scissors crossover" article that mentions the other terms, and its name is more likely to be common, it seems to me to be the best destination for the data. slambo 14:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The same should be done for this term as well. Make one of these pages a common page and edit the rest to redirect users to that page. Lets Go Yankees 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Merge and Redirect as per slambo. Deleting the page would be a waste of time. Lets Go Yankees 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
just noticed that Crossover (rail) was created to replace this one. just redirect. Lets Go Yankees 15:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Note that voting on this page was Lets Go Yankees's second edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
That's still not enough to justify your "sockpuppet" claim. Yankee Fan
Eddie, everybody knows its you, especially me. See User talk:Lets Go Yankees. You slipped up and used the <i>you</i> in an email to me from your Mr. Transit account. You aren't fooling anyone. Please, stop this before it gets you in trouble. --Viriditas 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we'd better drop this and move on, don't you think? I had enough. -- EddieSegoura 3:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN term --Rogerd 00:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
huh 17.255.240.2 00:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)?
"NN" is shorthand for Non-notable; he means it isn't well-known enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this sounds like a made up word and is unverifiable. If it is actually used by more people than Eddie himself then there will be plenty of time to add it latter, when it IS verifiable. Do not merge. David D. (Talk) 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 01:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless Eddie can verify and source it. Sarah Ewart 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This seems to makes more sense. Be patient, I'm trying to get the source. I've rode the Subway long enough to know the jargon avid riders use to talk about the stuff that makes it work.
  • Keep. I heard of the word before, perhaps this page belongs on Wiktionary? --No Whammies No Whammies (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet account of EddieSegoura --Viriditas 06:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Quentin Pierce 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trust but verify. As it stands, all three "keeps" and multiple "merges" appear to be made by Eddie and his socks. --Viriditas 09:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we talked about the "socks" issue yesterday. Check the IP address of those other accounts and You'll see they weren't signed on from this computer. --EddieSegoura 13:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so you were signed on from another computer? --Viriditas 13:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The people who want to have this page deleted has no idea what an "Exicornt" is. I feel this page ought to be merged into Rail switch since that page only has the image of what this page describes. I need a little time to give a good source but, from what I've seen, I doubt many of You know subway jargon. --EddieSegoura 13:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please cite sources for "exicornt". I'm willing to change my vote. --Viriditas 13:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made up word. --hydnjo talk 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Zero Google hits, not at Wiktionary and the only reference at Yahoo is mirrored from this very WP article.
I found a book about track mapping and Railroad Switches that used the term, I will the source page scanned tomorrow. Happy Thanksgiving -- EddieSegoura 6:57 PM, November 24, 2005 (EST)
Be patient, I will scan the page tomorrow.
Please give us the title, author, page number, publisher and ISBN of this book with your scan so that your claim is believable. -LichYoshi 09:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no sources cited. And blog has an article because it's a widely-used term with citable sources. When just a few people were using it, it would not have been a subject for a Wikipedia article. FreplySpang (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bunchofgrapes - TigerShark 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Bunchofgrapes started this page because He/She didn't know what the word was. Not knowing about the word is not enough to justify removing the page. Be patient, I'm going to take care of this tomorrow. This page is starting to fall into the category of Controversial topics. EddieSegoura 00:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not controversial at all, even though you would like it to be so with whatever nefarious means you can think up. Plain and simple this is a vote by whoever cares to vote up or down vote on this article. You have decided to win at whatever cost. DELETE someone's vote, bring in "first timers" or contrive whatever to hold your position. This community will see through it all and arrive at a fair decision. I'm now personally involved only because you or your agents decided that my vote should be eliminated. Well, screw that. Everyone's vote should count, with you or against you with regard to this article. You do yourself no favor by deleting someone's vote/opinion. hydnjo talk 01:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, all of the "first timer" accounts trace back to EddieSegoura. He's gotten so sloppy that he's managed to make comments under the same IP's. I find it very sad that he continues to deny it. And, he's been warned about using sock puppets at least twice by me, yet he still does it. --Viriditas 06:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • And you weren't even the first one. He's been screwing with the votes ever since this started. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect 198.22.123.106 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)This vote was made by two different IP's: 198.22.123.104 (talk · contribs) and 198.22.123.106 (talk · contribs). They have about five edits and resolve to Best Buy Co., Inc. The next vote by BestBuy25 appears to be a duplicate vote by these accounts.
  • This page should be merged the the rail switch page. BestBuy25 11:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
If you have the book Tracks of the NYC Subway you can check for a reference. The correct spelling word "Exicornt" might be different. BestBuy25 01:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked through quite a few pages of the book available online at http://nyctrackbook.com/updates.html and it seems to stick to terms like "crossover" and "double crosover". No signs of anything like "exicornt". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find it in the online version either, so I emailed Pete Dougherty, the author of the book, and asked him if he knows it to be a legitimate rail switch term. Sarah Ewart 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It would be interesting to find out if the two previous edits originated from the Brooklyn NY store. They were open at 5am EST today (early for holiday shopping) and according to the timestamps, those two edits would have been made at 5:45 and 6:13 AM EST, respectively (Hi Eddie!). Unfortunately, the IP block appears to resolve to HQ, so there's no way to tell right away. --Viriditas 12:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: According to Eddie's user page, he works ~1 mile away from the Best Buy store, and this can be shown on mapquest. However, for Eddie's own personal security, I would like it if someone could discourage him from posting the name of his workplace on his user page. I'm worried that someone might take advantage of this information and cause trouble for him. I've already told him not to post personal information, but he won't listen to me. --Viriditas 10:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lets all make nice and sing:
We are the puppets - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting - till the end -
We are the puppets -
We are the puppets
No time for losers
'Cause we are the puppets - of the world -
......Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all from hydnjo talk 19:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This AfD entry was prematurely closed by EddieSegoura: [2]. The entry was created at 22:29, November 22, 2005 (UTC) [3], and so it cannot be closed until 22:29, November 27, 2005 (UTC), which is about a day from now. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Update: A new page -- Crossover (rail) has been created. All references to both Exicornt and Scissors crossover should be redirected to that page. -- EddieSegoura 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Update to the above Update. Crossover (rail) was created on Nov 22 2005 by anon 24.105.138.40 whose user page is tagged with {{Sockpuppet|EddieSegoura}}. The article was edited here with the addition of ...or exicornt by EddieSegoura at 03:04 on November 27 2005 (UTC). hydnjo talk 03:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence can be produced of the term being used, in which case redirect to Crossover (rail). I have moved, expanded and rewritten that to cover both single and double crossovers. --SPUI (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank You for Your contribution, SPUI. The new page makes this page (Exicornt) and Scissors crossover obsolete and references to the both old pages should be redirected. -- EddieSegoura 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This move was rv'd by SPUI 1h 19m later. hydnjo talk 13:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Just to put an end to Eddie's "Exicornt" quest and his claim that the cited book on New York subways refers to exicornts, I have received an email from Pete Dougherty, the author of the book, which states in part: " I can tell you without hesitation that until your e-mail, I'd never heard "exicornt" ever used in any context and I doubt that it is even a word." He then goes on to say that the only possible use he can think of for the word would be as a location indicator, where exicornt is the name of a road, or other location. He then emphasises again that he had never even heard of the word until he received my email. Sarah Ewart 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much Sarah, I'm guessing Eddie lost the bet. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) hydnjo talk 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
At this point in time, I am willing to move on and let the Crossover (rail) replace the Exicornt page. This will be the last time I post here. If You want to discuss a new subject with Me (in a positive way), that's fine. As for this page. Farewell, EddieSegoura 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment All words are "made up words". Some just more recently than others. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Very funny Aaron, so I assume you are erring on the side of Keep merge in this debate ;) David D. (Talk) 05:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, somehow some ancient Greek or Roman fellow making up a word just puts so much more shine on it than Eddie doing so. One of those things. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:25, 28 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.