Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hella (word)

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Resolute 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hella (word)

Hella (word) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I don't beleive this word really needs it's own article, perhaps it could be merged and redirected into the Slang article as that article contains a list of slang with short descriptions. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with California English where I believe it's mentioned. JuJube (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like OR and is definitely a neologism. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - I agree with JuJube , merge to California English --Cradel 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge - Delete, as it's OR and fails WP:NEO. Definitely do not merge because California English focuses on what California English is (e.g. its lexical characteristics, its history/evolution, phonetics, etc.), not a dictionary of California English. Also, do not merge because of WP:DICT; the first sentence of WP:DICT is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Wiktionary may be a more appropriate place, but I'm not familiar with their policies. Jd027^chat 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The major differences, roughly, are that Wiktionary only needs sources showing usage, rather than defining/discussing the term, and they accept a broader pool of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a major generational slang term (although I personally wonder whether it peaked about five years ago). It is in dictionaries now including The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and even Random House Dictionary of Historical Slang (1994). This takes it off the WP:NEO plate as established slang and subject to normal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it take it off of the WP:DICT "off the plate"? Jd027^chat 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already added references discussing the cultural aspects of the word, proving an encyclopedic article is possible. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, and change of stance to Neutral. When I nominated this article for merge and redirect it was a very short article. Since then it has increased in size 20 fold, so I am not sure merging it into a list with short descriptions would be appropriate anymore. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:HEY. I don't know how much I like it, but it seems to satisfy WP:NEO right now. -Verdatum (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - so it's a word used a couple of times, primarily in an episode of South Park. Still leans towards not much more than a dictionary entry to me. - fchd (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (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.