Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feem

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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, ignoring the unsigned votes, delete. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 03:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Feem
Pseudo-linguistic bullfeem. Joyous (talk) 18:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

- John Duke: Atlanta, Georgia
 * Keep,It may be pseudo-linguistic bullfeem, but 'feem' is actually used like that by a considerable group of people that live around the South East. I don't see anyone else using feem, so I think we have a natural right to claim its use as such.


 * Keep,Please keep feem, it is a highly used word among a group of people.


 * Delete Can't see any indication in a Google search that it's used by anyone. Big pile of feeming bullfeem. KeithD 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Type feems into google, and you should find the following site - http://feem.sycophancy.net/home.html click the logo that says feems. People use the word. You yourself have just used it.
 * That's the website of someone called John Duke, which is coincidentally the same name as someone in favour of keeping the word. Thus it's either a form of vanity or a copyvio. KeithD 19:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I originated the use of the word like that (I actually got the word from an episode of 2 Stupid Dogs), but pretty much all of my good friends use the word, and it has been passed on to places as far as Idaho (I had a friend that got people to use it there). So, really, it's not just me, though certainly it would seem that way as I'm the only person who would probably care to have it up on wikipedia. But I still feel I have a right to claim the word, not as my own, but at least for the usage I came up with. - John


 * Delete Neologism. Bobbis 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an in-joke between you and your friends and no-one else cares. Ben-w 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep,If no one else cares, what's the point in arguing about it? Just ignore it and let the people have fun.

The point is that no one else has taken the word. It's up for the claiming, It's being used infinitely more by s than anyone else. You can find plenty of localized, insignificant stuff on this thing anyway.


 * Keep,I find this word quite useful and it has been a part of my regualr vocabulary for a number of years. It doesn't matter where it orginated so long as people find it facilitates communication. It's true what John says. I have heard it used by people who know neither he nor I. Shakespeare invented words that have come into common use. Feem, even Heinlen's "grok" is in wikipedia. "Grok" was a fabricated word, but people found it useful, and even though it's more or less an inside joke among scifi fans, it's used for more than getting cheap laughs. I see no difference between "grok" and "feem" in this respect. Keep it, or if it MUST go then just move it to the Wiktionary. - Will Mockridge
 * From Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion
 * Clearly widespread use,
 * Usage in a well known work,
 * Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
 * Usage, conveying meaning, in at least three independently recorded instances spanning at least a year, whether in print, audio, video or on the internet.
 * I'd say it doesn't merit a move to Wiktionary either. KeithD 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep,I use this word about 90% of the time that I can't remember a common usage word such as "pan" or "run" but if I can manage to insert a word there, the sentence makes sense. This happens to me more often than it should, and just because you've never heard it used doesn't mean it doesn't have useful applications to others. I say keep the word, since "neologism" (to use one of your own shiny five dollar words) keeps the language evolving. (unsigned edit by User:68.19.17.60, whose only edit is this one. Joyous  (talk) 20:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC))
 * Please note that Heinlein and Shakespeare are both famous people, which gives the words they invented slightly more weigth. Also, the current info suggests it's a dictionary entry and wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Words shouldn't have an article unless they are used on a national level at the very least. - Mgm|(talk) 20:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which means 'delete. Also, you responded to "no one else cares about" when in fact the most important part of that line was "in-joke between friends" which means it's not notable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It defies dictionary definition, since it is not so much a word as a tool for not having to use words. That's why the mimicked dictionary part of my entry looks comical and ridiculous. I was also under the impression that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to stab at an impossibility - a complete collection of all human knowledge. Now, there are some tribal groups somewhere with dwindling numbers that speak their own language and have their own customs who probably number less than the people who use the word feem. But the main point is this: having this entry in Wikipedia obstructs nothing and can only add to one's knowledge. There are no real reasons to NOT put it in. Oh, and it's also not a joke, since people use it without even thinking about it. - John


 * Keep,meh let them keep their word. -artorhemnnahs
 * Delete neologism, no information whether anyone uses it. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as in-joke neologism. You could put it in Everything2, which doesn't require a degree of encyclopedic value in their articles. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  23:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 23:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:WINAD, and Wiktionary wouldn't want it, anyway. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  23:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep,Does a term have to be known/used throughout the entire English-speaking world to merit inclusion in a international collection of knowledge such as wikipedia? There are plenty of current entries that are completely acceptable that not everyone in the world, or even a specific country such as the USA, knows.  This word is not known just among a small group of friends in the Southeast.  I personally know several individuals from locals such as Washington (state), Idaho, Utah, and California (who have never been to Georgia at all) who effectively use 'feem' in their vernacular.  Besides, sundry modern English words and phrases began as "in-jokes between friends" and eventually became used by a sizeable portion of the population.  See the many California 'surfer' terms or internet terminology that have become commonplace among the rising generation in North America.  Every year, such diction becomes more widespread.  Now, I am not promising that feem will become so common, for I cannot see the future.  Nevertheless, it is a vehicle to express certain ideas that other words or phrases cannot sufficiently illustrate.  As John stated, it can only add to human knowledge, not detract.  I see no reason not to include it in this encyclopedia, in spite of prejudices formed by those unfamiliar with said word.  -A. Pauluk


 * Delete, if solid evidence that this word is genuinely in use is provided, then I will change my vote to "Move to Wiktionary". But for now, delete. --Stormie 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see no reason why it should be deleted, or even moved to the Wiktionary. We have demonstrated a "national" usage.  While most people who use the word live in and around Atlanta, I personally know of people who use the word in Michigan, California, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Ohio and Russia.  The spread of the word is both through actual communication and through the Internet.  I find it quite a useful word, and say it quite a lot in all seriousness in order to avoid perplexing conversation gaps.  Because of it's interesting etymology, I say it merits it's inclusion in the Wikipedia.  It's not just a word, but a new way of going about conversation that can help reduce the prevalence of "Like, Uh... You know" in our language. Praetorian42 06:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)~
 * Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/undefined 07:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and surprisingly enough, Redirect to Enchanter (game) - it's a spell from that game. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Binadot 03:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, In-joke neologism is the best description I've seen so far. I don't see how an "interesting etymology" merits entry. An "useful etymology" perhaps, but this entire article is simiply made up on the spot. The majority of the rules center around "you can use this however you feel like at any point". Subjunctive is a mood not a tense by the way. Further, if you really believe it has merit as a replacement to words like "uh", than you should add a section to speech disfluencies. The likelihood of someone actually wanting to look this up on their own is next to zero. (editted because I suck at words)
 * Delete neologism. 03:46, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.