Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolescentilism


 * 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 was   delete. While the number of users on each side of the debate is roughly equal, the delete opinions are stronger and more refer to Wikipedia policies. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Adolescentilism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essentially a dictionary-like disambiguation to articles that are sometimes incorrectly referred to by that name, at least according to the present state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's disambiguation with use. There's nothing wrong with "dictionary-like" information to help a disambig page make more sense. Even if the second is incorrect usage, the fact that anyone uses it that way still means the distinction is needed. Shoester (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the word does not appear in either of the articles referenced. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--No harm is done by keeping this disambiguation page. It may be helpful for somebody searching for the term. --Jmundo (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm, but no use - it won't help someone searching for the term, because neither of the articles it points to mentions it. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above: WP:NOHARM. Per wikipedia policies: WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:V, WP:N. Put in Define:adolescentilism into google: no hits (that means nothing on a prominent dictionary, or better yet: NOT A WORD.), WP:MADEUP. Furthermore, there's WP:DICTDEF. Wikipedia is not a spellchecker, the search feature already looks for similar words. ( coincidentally, how do you tag a article on wikitionary on a word that doesn't exist? figured it out) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The term may not appear on a prominent dictionary but the word does exist: Google Books.--Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it does exist. But it doesn't exist in either target article, so each of the "disambiguation" links should not point to an article.  That would make it a dictdef without pointers, which is exactly what I said it was.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, disambiguation with some use. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly Redirect to ageplay (as an alternate spelling?). Disambiguation page with no use. No mention of term on Ephebophilia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (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.