Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiLex

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 speedy delete as admitted neologism. I see no reason to continue the debate, since it's unanimously in favor of deletion.

[edit] WikiLex

Neologism, DicDef, debatable conclusion that creating new words "broadens the body of human knowledge" as nothing new is really known. Outlander 14:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Note - there is a Wiki project by this name that provides legal information, this is not about thatproject - --Outlander 14:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

1. Word mentioned in a large publication.
2. Second definition ("debatable" or not) reflects an accepted use of the word.
--Lexlander 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• A single article hardly establishes accepted use, and even if it did wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT --Outlander 16:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Note I'm uncertain how to redirect this entry's main heading back to 'Wikilex'. Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
  --Lexlander 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. No convincing evidence presented of real use. Its self-referential quality is not amusing enough for BJAODN. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnneologism. -Splash 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• The world already has accepted terms for original research and for protologisms. This article is a dictionary article on a protologism whose purported meaning is the creation of original research and protologism articles. The external hyperlink points to an article describing a person who sets students projects to create made up words and then to write dictionary articles, such as this one, about them here in Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 18:34:40, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

• It's clear that Alex Duensing has never read WP:NOT, if he had he would not say that Wikipedia allows articles "on any topic" --Outlander 18:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in a puff of logic. FreplySpang (talk) 19:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Paul August ☎ 19:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this might be the first ever organized (and assigned) violation of WP:POINT (read some of the news coverage of this Duensing character...) ESkog 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G.—219.94.59.167 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This teacher didn't do his homework. (And see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiyama for another one of these I found.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly part of a larger violation of Wikipedia policy. -Loren 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As if it got run over at the next zebra crossing. Sean 01:39, 9 September 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.