Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unonym

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unonym

• Looks believable, but Google / dictionary.com / Merriam-Webster all come up blank on this neologism. Deletonym. — Lomn | Talk 19:01:01, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• It is really rare. I don't know where, but I fully remember seeing this someowhere and I know this was not a fake. And the Wikipedia is for showing everybody the meaning of strange perculiar words.If anybody had to find out what this obscure word meant then they come to the Wikipedia. Is it actually wrong to make an article about a rare word which helps anybody who needs to know what it means? I say no,but I'm not sure what you think. (J.Sagnella) 2005-08-23
  • Comment: There's nothing wrong with making an article about a rare but existing word. However, I find no evidence that this word exists at all. Not in dictionaries, and not a single English-language Google hit. Provide a good citation and I'm sure it'll be kept. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ — Lomn | Talk 20:23:00, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is for showing everybody the meaning of strange perculiar words — No, that's the dictionary's job. The dictionary is over there. This is the encyclopaedia. The job of the encyclopaedia is to tell people about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the words represent. The encyclopaedia is on the use side of the use-mention distinction.

    Is it actually wrong to make an article about a rare word which helps anybody who needs to know what it means? — Yes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia will have the article on immunopathology, telling readers all about the field, but it is Wiktionary that is there to tell them the meaning of the word immunopathological.

    If anybody had to find out what this obscure word meant then they come to the Wikipedia. To look up the meanings of words, it is better to use a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 23:16:52, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

• Now before you post you need to know a few things:1.I saw the word Unonym ages ago.I don't know how long as I am very bad at timekeeping but probably about a year.Now I have a bad memory so I can't be compeletely sure where i saw it.2.I only just saw the Wikipedia a few days ago and because it was so great I wanted to put an article in to say thank you.The one word I remember in the corner of my brain was unonym-so I checked the Wikipedia and it didn't appear so I decided to enter it.Now I might be wrong here but I think I remember seeing it in a puzzle in a newspaper. (Can't remmeber which one,probably T2 though) Now I wouldn't try to put in a random thing a low-IQ freind or chatboard said so wherever I saw this,it must of been a valid source. (J.Sagnella)2005-08-23
• For information, Chambers 21st Century dictionary comes up blank as well, Sorry, "J.Sagnella" (please sign your edits as Lomn asks, with ~~~~), but there seem to be no valid sources that confirm this word as existing. I really wish there were, as it's a good word. However if I coined, say, the word 'splontish' as meaning "sharp and spiky" my coining it wouldn't make it a valid source, nor would someone having seen it here a while ago make it any more valid. Delete unless author can find some verifiable sources. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pending verification. Not much more than a dicdef too. ManoaChild 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Okay you have my authorisation to delete it. If by any chance I do find the valid sources i'll post this back on the wiktionary.Let me Draw the Curtains on this.IT IS NOT A MADE-UP WORD.I'M POLITELY LETTING YOU BRIEFLY LOCKING THIS AS IT IS A BIT TOO RARE FOR PEOPLE TO DEFINE AS A "PROPER" WORD. (AND HAS NO WRITTEN SOURCES ON THE NET)(Until i find some valid sources.)(J.Sagnella)
  • Comment: too rare, all right. It's also not in OED (2e) or Cassell's slang dictionary... Bikeable 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

        TOPIC CLOSED-UNONYM DELETED UNTIL VALID SOURCES FOUND

• Speedy delete per author, and speedy deletion guideline 7. Unonym is a completely made-up word, and even if it weren't it would belong at wiktionary, not here. JDoorjam 21:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. -Splash 22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. mikka (t) 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete splontishly, unverifiable neologism. Barno 19:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not only non-existant, but practically useless. Budgiekiller 12:38, 25 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.