Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomachuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomachuck

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. As a result, ballot stuffing is pointless: there is no ballot to stuff.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


neologism, something made up in school one day. Originally nominated for speedy deletion and contested, but as it's not a candidate for speedy deletion I'm listing it here --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Tomadelete SM247 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Adambiswanger1 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tomadelete agree nom and SM247, wikipedia not for stuff made up in a school day. Nonsensy stuff. Kevin_b_er 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tomakeep!!! I use this word all the time and have heard it in other environments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.87.23 (talk • contribs) .
  • 'Tomakeep' I live in Austin, Tx and have heard this term used at the lake. There is also a list of people who regularly use this term on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcrow (talk • contribs)
(injected comment) This user has only made 8 edits, all pertaining to this article, and is the creator of the article. Kevin_b_er 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, 6 unique Google hits, none of them having anything to do with this. Accurizer 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • TomaDelete! Funny, but definitely a neologism. Sorry. Maybe this can be revived if it becomes an actual slang term. --0zymandias 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Chuck it per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting -- I heard tomachuck used up on Lake Hamilton in Arkansas earlier this summer, and wasn't sure what it meant. Makes since now... kind of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.218.79 (talk • contribs)
  • Tomakeep. User:Jen 08:36, 8 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.87.23 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think WP:NEO and WP:NFT pretty much cover it. -- Kicking222 01:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. -- Koffieyahoo 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Accurizer. Lbbzman 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What if I was able to get the word tomachuck to be used during a prime time television show... who that solidify it as a word —The preceding partially signed comment was added by Prcrow (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
This is a duplicate vote as of this comment. Kevin_b_er 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NFT, no matter how many kids show up to claim they've heard it at the lake. Fan1967 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larbage and my own and others' comments there. If in the incredibly unlikely (yet admittedly possible) circumstance that this term is adopted into common usage, the page may be recreated...on Wiktionary, where it would belong, and not here. So, either way, deletion is warranted. SM247 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. At the VERY least it should be noted that based on wikipedia policy WP:NOT the article should be deleted. The entry is a definition of a fake word anyway. MBob 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN neologism —Mets501talk 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Even if it weren't a non-notable autobiographical neologism (which it is), it would still be a dictionary definition. - Andre Engels 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hey look, sockpuppets! In any case, this is unencyclopedic nonsense. IrishGuy talk 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Scott 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very, very n-n. Inner Earth 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever happened to kids wanting to keep their secret language secret? -- GWO
Reality TV happened - now everyone wants to be a star --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
On what grounds? --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:02, 11 June 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.