Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginormous

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 Speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ginormous. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginormous

Delete neologism. As article states "it is a made up word". TM ^(talk) 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not a neologism. Put a {{wi}} there. Kappa 12:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's a dicdef, but it's not a neologism by any means. As this article from ABC (Australia) says, despite winning the Miriam-Webster "new word" competition, in fact the word has been in the OED for years, and has been around since at least the mid-20th century. It was used to me here in Britain when I was little (late 1970s), and my parents certainly didn't invent it. 325,000 Google hits, too. Thus, move to Wiktionary. Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary already had a definition, and this has no hope of being anything but a dictdef. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef already in Wiktionary. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 26 September 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.