Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weenis

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. -Doc ask? 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weenis

Hoax/neologism. Previously deleted as hoax; this article is not an exact duplication of the original content, but has expanded on the same basic premise. Kafziel 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why is that a bad thing? There are plenty of accepted neologisms on this site. Including the article on neologism...the word neologism being a neologism itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)
Um, no there aren't, and no it isn't. Kafziel 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The word began as a neologism. If you read the article it includes many neologisms which have articles on wikipedia including gay and blog. I also reference http://folk.uio.no/iroggen/Root_knowledge.html which I gleaned from that same neologism wiki article.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "neologism" is more than 200 years old. Neither "gay" nor "blog" were neologisms when their articles were created on Wikipedia. "Weenis" didn't begin as a neologism - it is a neologism. Kafziel 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism, wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day. - Richardcavell 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"don't delete:::Wow. The wiki-elitism of this discussion just keeps increasing. Oh I'm sorry...wiki-elitism...that would be neologism. The word "weenis" has been around for many years now and was not simply coined by me after sticking gum to the underside of a desk. While it is a neologism, it still has the potential to become more. It is comparitively young as compared to others and I feel that you high-and-mighty weilders of the delete function are acting a bit unfairly. This article is not vandalism, it's an early sign of a future term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete There is a large difference between what were once neologisms that have become widely accepted words and neologisms. We should err on the side of rejecting neologisms that are on the edge of becoming widely accepted parts of the english language. If we miss the cutting edge, oh well, big loss.--Nick Y. 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh noes! Another claim of Wiki-elitism by... who are you again? Oh well, Delete. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doubtful it even belongs on Uncyclopedia. Fluit 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. I concede. Thank you for the creatively worded criticism. I have signed up and no longer remain a nameless IP address.

PS- do these endless deletion arguments and rule-spouting remind anyone else of Stoppardian absurdism? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern playing question games... Devisch 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment The hell? I think I liked you better as an anon. Jeez... (sticks a great big smiley somewhere so people know I'm being humorous :/) Danny Lilithborne 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism Beno1000 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When this article is deleted, I think the accompanying photos should be as well. They serve no other purpose. Kafziel 23:53, 13 May 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.