Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somathencialence

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. Sango123 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somathencialence

Neologism unused by anyone except the author of the article. Historical note: User:Jitse Niesen listed this for proposed deletion, but the author removed the {{prod}} tag. —Caesura^(t) 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Caesura. Penelope D 04:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the sole google hit is the Wiktionnary entry which, by the way, is also contested. Pascal.Tesson 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in case it ever becomes a word I might one day have to spell... --Howard Train 04:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

... or pronounce for that matter... Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And for being Just Silly. Tevildo 08:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unused neologism, doesn't fit on WP. Sum0 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. —D-Rock 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why can't this be speedied? —D-Rock 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Only pages which satisfy the narrow criteria for speedy deletion can be speedied. As far as I can see, none of these apply. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought G1 applied, but I guess I have a very broad definition of "patent nonsense." —D-Rock 13:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It is definitely patent nonsense but too many people have seen it now, and we'd never get away with speedying it. Delete anyway. Adam Bishop 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It is not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is only something that someone couldn't expand even if they wanted to because they don't know what the article is talking about or where to look for information. This article is talking about a non-notable new education method. Jon513 18:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Nydas 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: this policy supports deletion, as does don't include things made up in one school day. Perhaps it would be a nice gesture to point the creator towards other articles they may be interested in editing? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• move to sister site move it to wikisource or another sister site and give the chap a head start on original research. Who knows, he could found a discipline/university/country, etc. I'd sign up for his mailing list, that's for sure. 82.131.188.85 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete and do not transWiki. Nelogism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• The article talks in the first person about how the concept should be adopted by others, and the article's author, David Little (talk · contribs), admits on the talk page that this is xyr "very first invention". original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:51, 4 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.