Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talifan

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 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talifan

This article was speedy deleted under G5 after a transwiki to Wictionary. Wictionary subsequently deleted the article. A DRV consensus determined that, failing a transwiki, the article deserved a hearing at AfD. Personally, I don't see why the article was transwiki'ed as it is in the first place, given its content, which is broader in scope than a dictionary entry would be. This matter is brought to AfD to determine if the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - apparently fails WP:NEO (as an aside it appears it was never put into Wiktionary so it might survive if it is transwikied). Yomangani 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While it isn't in the transwiki log, Talifan is in the wiktionary deletion log. It got over there somehow, and was deleted. Xoloz 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this term looks like a term that is confined to a few blogs and message boards. BigDT 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I served as a mediator for this article [1] when there were problems with the external links. There was a lot of confusion about what belonged, what didn't. If Wictionary doesn't want it, delete it. It's not going to improve anytime soon, it's a neologism at best. Tsetna 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The main reasons why this article should be deleted have already been mentioned: Among other things it violates the WP:NEO and it's extremely limited. Edit: The article also violates "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", see WP:NOT.--SincereGuy 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its a definition at best, dicdef or neologism, either way I don't see it meeting WP:NEO or WP:NOT. It's had its fair chance at Wiktionary too, but seems they didn't want it.
• Delete Only Star Wars fans who know about Karen Traviss's alleged butchery of and extreme minimalist retcons within the SW novel franchise would have any familiarity with the term. E. Sn0 =31337= 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this a neologism (at best), but it is an insult used almost exclusively by a small circle of people. JimRaynor55 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An obscure neologism, rejected by wikitionary to boot.Beryoza 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Beryoza and selected others. -- NORTH ^talk 21:22, 23 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.