Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeoporn


 * 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 Deletaeporn. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Archaeoporn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not only a neologism, but a neologism created yesterday. The author of this coinage is more qualified than most, and I agree with his sentiment, but a neologism with no history of use that's 2 days old at most is just not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. WegianWarrior 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - neologism that was made up one day (i.e. yesterday). MER-C 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is very tempting as a speedy deletion candidiate, but it doesn't meet any specific criteria in WP:CSD. In practice, articles like this are speedied all the time, so why isn't the CSD changed to reflect actual community consensus? Deranged bulbasaur 09:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a neologism, this falls particularly flat.  The first things I thought of were of a genre of pornography featuring dinosaurs, or maybe Neanderthals or ancient Egyptians &mdash; any of which would be more fun than what it actually turned up to be about.  But I don't see this as being a speedy candidate, and it does try slightly to claim notability for this coinage by attributing it to an academic. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As neo as a ~logism can be. Regarding the comment above, it is true that this does not appear to meet any specific articles for speedy deletion, but an administrator can (and should, in my view) speedily close this debate because, as stated in WP:SNOW, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." I think that any editor other than maybe the author voting to "keep" this despite it's undeniable status as a recently created term for any policy-based reason is a remote possibility beyond any reasonable expectation.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable neologism. Jules1975 15:28, 5 March 2007 (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.