Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyplish

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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyplish

Self-admitted neologism, created by a novice, and as a neologism, is completely unsalvageable. Rklawton 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhh .. what do you mean by "novice"? Do you mean I just created a Wikipedia account? If so, so what?
I'm not a "novice" in the relevant field, I'm quite a senior, influential figure (so there).
You do realize that all terms are neologisms when they are new? Right? Are you aware of that? Any technical term used in a specific field, say, that is under (let's say) a year old could be called a neologism.
I'm sure there is lots of idiocy you have to sift through in keeping an eye on the wikipedia .. but ..
There's a fine line between being an embarassing martinet (look up "martinet" on the wiki if you don't know what it is) and giving wiki a reputation for being run by embarassing martinets, and having the right touch.
There's a few lines on the Hyplish:talk page FWIW. Ultimately it's your party, do as you wish !! It's YOUR wiki. (by User:Test12134)
Comment. Please see AfD_etiquette, particularly noting the bullet on personal attacks. Dsreyn 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
are you referring to Rlawton's "novice" comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Test12134 (talk • contribs)
Comment. I was referring to your "embarassing martinet" comment. I believe "novice" meant "newcomer" (which your edit history seems to verify). It also applies to your more recent comment suggesting that those who vote delete are "jokers who have no substance or experience in life, and their only pwer and glory is deleting lamer wiki articles", as well as your lecturing on how to "appear more adult". Dsreyn 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see AfD_etiquette, particularly noting the bullet on personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Test12134 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Dsreyn 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per all the above. Emphasis on "all". Tevildo 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Note, you guys can and should do absolutely whatever you want.

For what it's worth:

(1) it is an actual term, used commonly in the specific field. I can't be more clear than that. It has nothing to do with "original research," I'm just reporting on an (arcane, if you will) term. (As mentioned, note that there is no other term for, well, hyplish, than hyplish. What else do you call it when someone is deliberately trying to pretend thy speak English badly? "pseudo-Engrish" maybe?)

(2) comments like "made up in school" are really embarassing.

The exact impression such comments convey is that:

(*) Wiki owners are jokers who have no substance or experience in life, and their only pwer and glory is deleting lamer wiki articles. I'm assuming you DON'T WANT TO give that impression.

I encourage you to simply refrain from such expressions, if you want to appear more adult. A good trick if you want ot appear more adult is to, generally, refrain and act "above" things. That will help you appear more adult.

(3) I can ABSOLUTELY understand that you poor guys have to delete idiocy about nazis and the like day in and day out. But it's worth bearing in mind that a light touch is needed. In the current situation you are deleting a term, farily obscure and specialized, that is nervetheless real, because (not unreasonably) I imagine you get idiots trying to fake up wiki entries all day!

Definitely delete it altogether thought, it is YOUR wiki with YOUR standards

Cheers (by User:Test12134)


Comment: Kungfuadam was referring to the essay Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which is a metaphor for things that are made up on a whim. And yes, it's an insular term that can be accusing and insulting, and most likely inapporpriate to use with a novice like yourself around. However, remember if you're judging our behavior, we can judge yours, and you don't look so hot yourself either. If you understand we can't have made-up idiocy on WP, you know we need proof to verify, and you have provided none. hateless 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per all the above. Emphasis on "all". Tevildo 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for terms that are unsourced and receive no Google hits. Wickethewok 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A "commonly used term" in any field would not toally fail a google search. Fan1967 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete "it is an actual term, used commonly in the specific field". Must mean the playing field. --DaveG12345 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. Test12134: welcome to wikipedia, and no, this is your wiki as well. For a better explanation of why we do not accept neologisms, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Of course every word (particularly in a technical field) begins as a neologism, but we don't need to have articles on them from the get-go; we prefer to wait until they are notable and verifiable, which this one is not. I would also point you towards WP:AGF. bikeable (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2006 (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.