Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrokleptic

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrokleptic

Dicdef for apparent neologism. Returns 55 unique Google hits [1]. Tracing some links, this post at Rootsweb claims coinage [2]. The term has an entry at pseudodictionary [3] and urbandictionary [4] with the same example usages and multiple sites appear to take it from those two. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we have a guideline against Neologisms.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete—Humorous but hardly notable enough not to be a neologism. Williamborg (Bill) 05:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• People unfamiliar with Wikipedia sometimes think that it is a self-submission dictionary of stuff that they have just made up, along the lines of the other self-submission web sites mentioned above. It isn't. It's an encyclopaedia. The title of this article is a protologism, not a word. (It fails Wiktionary's inclusion criteria with a resounding thud. It has zero occurrences on Google Groups, for example.) Given that it isn't even a word, there is no encycylopaedia article about "pyrokleptics" to be had by this title. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — but move to my userspace for humor purposes. --TheM62Manchester 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 23:16, 21 August 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.