User talk:Stonehinge

A tag has been placed on Malaysiatic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix talk  04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would disagree that the text is incoherently unsalvageble. I would ask you or your colleagues one question; What were your initial thoughts as to the meaning of the word Malaysiatic? If they were 'of or pertaining to Malaysia' then I would suggest that we both agree on the meaning for this word.

If this word is worthy of inclusion in your list I can suggest a more fuller explanation of the word if it is desired. (Stonehinge (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi Stonehinge. The article on Malaysiatic was deleted for two reasons:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's a sister project called Wiktionary that handles definitions (although they might reject this entry as a neologism).
 * The article promoted the Malaysiatic trademark used in the marketing of beauty products. Promotional articles qualify for speedy deletion.
 * Unfortunately, I don't see any ways you could address these two concerns with a different take. Don't get discouraged though, Wikipedia is always looking for new contributors. Take a look at our tutorial and five pillars to learn more about contributing. Good luck and happy editing! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anetode, thanks for the reply. I did try wikitionary & without any reference to trademark but was rejected because there is only one citable source, (which as you have probably found through Google is a trademark promoting beauty products, although this was not quoted to me as a reason). In retrospect Wikitionary is probably a more suitable location for inclusion but I need to locate further independent references to the use of this word which do not yet (to my knowledge) exist.

Is it always this difficult to obtain recognition of a new word even if it is a combination of other words & people understand exactly what you are inferring?

Best Regards(Stonehinge (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
 * If by recognition you mean inclusion in Wikipedia, then yes. Articles on neologisms or protologisms are usually deleted, the ones that are kept have to be backed up by significant coverage (e.g. truthiness) or sudden widespread use (e.g. plugin). Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)