Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noip

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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noip

Apparent neologism. Delete.-Mr Adequate 09:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Gazpacho 11:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Not even funny.Obina 14:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ironclad Keep - Should definately be kept. I can see why it may need cleaned up. --Chazz88 23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why it should be kept? What makes it encyclopedic? Just because someone invented it one day doesn't necessarily mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. — JIP | Talk 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is not an encyclopaedia article about noips, whatever they may be, but is a dictionary article, describing the various meanings and usages of the word "noip". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, this word is not attested. Delete. Uncle G 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

mappum 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a made up word, but nobody will notice it is there unless they search it. People will only search noip if they know the word. Anyway, it won't use up much space on the wikipedia servers! Keep. mappum 010:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) comment really by 24.17.169.93 (talk · contribs), who has only ever edited the article Noip and this AfD.
  • "This is a made up word" pretty much proves our point. Just because someone makes a word up one day doesn't automatically mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. I can make up a word right here. "Splaw" means the same thing as "excellent". But no one else than I is ever going to care a flying toss about that word, even if I were to write a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia should not be used as a medium to gain notability for new concepts, it should only be used to document concepts that already are notable. If we allowed articles about everything just because "it doesn't use up much space on the Wikipedia servers" then we would have tens of millions of poorly written articles about things only their author will ever care about, and the actual real encyclopedia articles would get lost in the background noise. — JIP | Talk 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. crap. Incognito 06:32, 5 January 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.