Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics, schmethics


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethics, schmethics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable neologism, no sources. The source given didn't use the phrase but only described the meaning of schm- reduplication. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no sources to explain the notability of this specific occurrence of shm- reduplication; possibly give it a mention in the Shm-reduplication article instead of its own? Writ Keeper (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no reason why this shm-reduplication is especially notable, and there are no sources which demonstrate that it is. I see no reason to even incorporate into or merge with the shm-reduplication article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As well as the lack of any demonstrated notability, I agree with Maunus that this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm in complete agreement with the other comments. Unless there's some especially-notable use of the shm-reduplication process with a particular base--and there's no evidence of that here--we don't need a new article for each instance of its use! --Miskwito (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note. This discussion was not listed on a daily log page, I have now relisted it. ascidian  | talk-to-me  19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian  | talk-to-me  19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. --Lambiam 22:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wiktionary, then delete. While there's sources that use the term,, , , there isn't likely a great deal of information in reliable sources about the term itself. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to agree with the others. There's nothing to say that this particular usage of "schm-" is any more notable than the thousands of other ways that it gets used. It's not worth a merge. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Merge, smerge to Shm-reduplication. Or delete, oy veh. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I am in agreement with User:Miskwito. Shm- is so common that individual instances have no place in WP. Wictionary has it covered --Greenmaven (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2011 (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.