Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idolizationarianism

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. Shanel 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idolizationarianism

Incorrectly tagged as speedy. It's a neologism. The page has been tagged with hangon, but no matter how much it's developed, it's still about a neologism. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 17:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On what fronts isn't it a speedy? It clearly states it is a neologism, it's poorly written and has no chnace of actually being a real word. J.J.Sagnella 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no CSD category for neologisms. Here is a list of criteria for speedy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion· Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you just use {{db|neologism}}? J.J.Sagnella 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You could, and the admin who came to it would remove the {db} tag with a comment like "not a valid CSD criterion". Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is, of course, exactly what happened. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete even Dubya wouldn't use this word. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the most rapid manner that is not officially a speedy --Ruby 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete / Speedy Delete and say it's not speedy. Reason: Wikipedia is not for words made up by you, especially when they don't make sense! This is not only a violation of encyclopedic material, but it also breaks standard english speech patterns. "ization"? "arianism"? I think it's more of a vanity page, just to get attention or troll. (example: "this word was made up by me".) I doubt this even qualifies for Wiktionary! Raccoon Fox 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I tagged it as speedy, as it's a blatant hoaxy neologism; it even states this in the 'article', and bothering to put this through the AfD process when it's such a clear delete is just a waste of everyone's time. Certainly classes as 'nonsense'. Be bold, and do not feed the trolls. Proto||type 12:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my vote. Proto||type 13:00, 20 February 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.