Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snafucated

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 - Wiktionary doesn't want our protologisms either. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snafucated

This article reads as a dictionary definition. 24fan24 00:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef. Possible candidate for Transwiki if verified. --Alan Au 05:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, reference points to NN-bio. --Alan Au 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• The article is a dictionary article about a word, not an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. The word is a protologism, and the concept for an encyclopaedia article to be about would be snafucation, as per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). However, the word has no meaning and there is no actual concept of snafucation for an encyclopaedia article to be about. It is simply a metasyntactic variable used in a discussion of how to write comments in computer programs that will annoy maintenance programmers. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. helohe (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unstable, neologism, i.e. protologism. See WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary - clear. BlueValour 21:41, 17 July 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.