Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apronym


 * 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. Majorly 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apronym

 * — (View AfD)

Neologism. Good thing I sent it here because it kept being completely deleted by some random user. Looks like it violates WP:NEO, but we;ll see what the opinion is. Wizardman 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The word does not appear in dictionaries, but the phenomenon of apronyms is notable, and it should use that name until a better name is found. (By the same criteria, RAS syndrome is also a neologism.  It's a good comparison bec. both articles are about unusual acronyms.) YechielMan 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comparison was coined in a magazine, while this was coined more recently on an internet forum. PLus keep WP:INN in mind.-- Wizardman 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. When the origin of a term is a form whose name includes the term, there is really very little question that the term is a neologism or protologism.  That issue entirely aside, the article does not meet inclusion standards on the merits.  There is no means to determine if an acronym is sufficiently "appropriate" to be considered.  Because no third-party sources address this term, the topic inescapably fails WP:OR.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously JuJube 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the pheonomenon is real, interesting, and notable. If it should be moved to another name, then so be it, but the phenomenon should be noted in an article somewhere, whatever its name - PocklingtonDan 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would anyone want to consider merging some of the content into acronym? YechielMan 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We went through the same with snow clone and eggcorn, neologism yes, but a recognized one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * eggcorn has lots of good sources; this does not. I am always a little wary when people say "this is well-known."  Well-known by whom?-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A neologism created on a non-notable forum.  The article makes all sorts of claims for the term, including the summary's false claim that the term is used in linguistics; the concept is of limited interest and extension.  Googling reveals virtually no links that aren't to copies of the originating site or similar blogs and forums.  At most this might be mentioned in Acronym. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. BuickCenturyDriver 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a discussion, not a vote. Would you give your reason for keeping (and, if possible, explain why you disagree with those who argue for its deletion)? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Bob 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. neologism. Eusebeus 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is a widely used term, as shown by the examples. There are obvious sources for the examples given, and we hardly have to prove that CAN-SPAM exists--though we do, since it has its own article documenting it. If a particular use is questioned, that one gets to be discussed  on the   article talk page. . If it has become widely used, it is notable.  That's what notable means. The applicability of the term is proved by the two independendent sources, and that's what V means.    Mel, that is why we disagree with the deletion. WP is not a fossil. DGG 10:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that there are not "two independent sources". Within the article, there are no independent sources, just multiple links to the website that created this neologism.  There does exist one arguably independent source using and (although I find the referencing of an Internet forum in a scholarly paper unusual!), but it does not discuss the term as required by WP:NEO, only using it in passing.  This would qualify as a Wiktionary attestation as I understand it, but is not sufficient for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  So far as I can tell, all other appearances online are in wikis, wiki mirrors, blogs, and other user-submitted sources without editorial control.  Some of them even make the purpose of the term's use obvious.  "Plugging for [this] neologism", indeed. Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the examples show this term is in wide use, rather other facts about acronyms are twisted into examples used to prop up the neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliably sourced... Addhoc 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete from Wikipedia: we're not a dictionary. Offer it to Wiktionary, and if it meets their criteria for inclusion they can have it ( though I suspect it won't ! ). WMMartin 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of sources and failure to meet guidelines on neologisms.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability :: mikm t 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note that there's even an apronym in Wikipedia: WP:PAIN. The word "pain" seems a propos of "personal attacks."  (YechielMan) 129.98.212.64 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sort of argument would also justify an article on Hawaiio-Greek portmanteaux. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nn neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nn neologism. Move to wiktionary, it's an interesting article and term (if contraversial)


 * 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.