Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginormous/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a dictionary entry, not really encyclopedic, and I don't think it can be expanded. Prove me wrong. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:13, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's already mentioned in List of portmanteaus, and there isn't much else to say about it. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ]] 16:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dictdef (and it's not a California word). Geogre 18:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. -Sean Curtin 19:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dictdef, delete. Spatch 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not aware of this being "California slang", and I live in California, so the first sentence is unverifiable. The second merely repeats what is already in List of portmanteaus. --Slowking Man 20:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Real word, and at least 60 years old. I thought it was more British than Californian - I've certainly heard it before, and it is used by columnists in UK newspapers (I found 23 articles containing the word on the Guardian archives). Certainly worth being in Wiktionary. Average Earthman 12:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've remedied the page so that it no longer requires deletion. It is now an entry at Wiktionary:Ginormous, and a soft redirect is in place. When you see a dictionary entry, just fix it yourself. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote: How do you know that the Wiktionary would welcome what is clearly a neologism? If I recall correctly, things like slang and non-notable neologisms had no place there (I could be wrong, of course.) Not all dicdefs deserve transwiki, so your advice is somewhat lacking. --Ardonik.talk() 02:34, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Neologisms do have plenty of support over there (see wiktionary:Category:English slang and wiktionary:Neologisms). -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I stand corrected. Thank you for the link. --Ardonik.talk() 04:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's a neologism, it's a neologism that's been around for a long time, and not at all just in California. I'm a thirtysomething Canadian, and I remember high school classmates describing things as "ginormous". Just FYI. Bearcat 23:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • But that's OK, because Netoholic has remedied it by passing that bogus information over to Wiktionary, where they don't have a VfD process. So now Wiktionary says that it's a California term. See how much better that is? I was born in 1962 in the south, and we were using it in early high school, too. Geogre 03:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - creating articles just to serve as pointers to Wiktionary should not be done. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been around for some time, and by dictionary presence it looks British WWII armed forces rather than California surfer dudes. Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "Very large, simply enormous; excessive in size, amount, etc. (esp. in comparison with one's expectation)" and points for sources to Eric Partridge, Dictionary of Forces' Slang (1948) and W. Granville, Dictionary of Sailors' Slang (1962). By contrast it's not in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The chronological pattern of hits suggests "ginormous" may be on its way out, but so far it's slang in good standing, so Wiktionary suits. Bishonen 09:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Soft redirects to wiktionary are misleading. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you please explain what you mean by that? -- Jmabel 21:48, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the point of having an article stub just to let people know about the existence of Wiktionary. Off topic, but I've replaced the VFD tag that was removed by User:Netoholic. Regardless of whether or not you believe you have "remedied" the situation, you can't remove the tag unilaterally. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:33, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)