Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dopetacular


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is by a narrow margin, as contrary to obvious expectations, the anonymous IP who added the keep vote does have other contributions. But I personally feel this is a very non-notable neologism. &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dopetacular
Neologism / Dic. def.
 * Delete --Quasipalm 13:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources and adds little to Wikipedia. Winnermario 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep**** Neologisms often become accepted parts of the language. I see it as being useful, and also helping the language to grow and change; I believe itresembles a fun and creative way to play with a language.

I have heard this word several times in my area. I agree with Mr. Lewis's post. I do not feel it should be deleted.
 * 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.