Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frim

 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 delete. Joyous (talk) 16:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Frim
Delete apparent neologism. It doesn't matter how I Google for this, I can't see any results that appear to confirm the existence of the word. And no, it shouldn't be redirect to (please be red) From because that'd be a dicdef. -Splash 00:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Google certainly does not have all the words of the language. I'm sure that there are many words in the Oxford English Dictionary that one would not find in a Google search. Many words have a conversation only beginning and later break out into the Google searchable world. Unsigned comment by anon IP 24.20.76.42. Author of the article.-Splash 00:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with Splash. FreplySpang (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see the article deleted so long as you can answer this question- what do you call a frim?? Are you suggesting that there is no word at all for that sort of thing?? I would also like to note that neither Splash nor FreplySpang are Hollywood TV writers. A lot you two know about sitcoms, with your noses in philosophy books or political science articles all day long. Have you ever been to a Hollywood pool party??? Well, then: You wouldn't know.
 * In response to your challenge I will take what I hope is not flaimbait at its word and suggest comedic misunderstanding, the classic miscommunication or it's more verbose brother getting the wires crossed. And what about that old favorite, dramatic irony? Sure, perhaps they don't have the flair or brevity of "frim," but what of that ignoble day, thousands of years in the future, when we've run out of four letter words and there is a more important concept than this that needs rapid communicaion. It is that day that I will raise my tequila and celebrate what I believe will be the outcome of this VfD. Sirmob 03:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The need for a word does not prove that the word exists. Delete. --JimmyTheWig 16:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There is wiktionary for dictionarydefinitions, and WP is not a neologism or slang guide (WP:WIN) drini &#9742; 01:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Presumably these Hollywood TV writers would write the word into a drama or sitcome if the word was that common in those circles. This appears not to have happened. Apart from this, it would have to convince us that it wouldn't be a dictdef. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we've heard from the word police, now let's hear from the people. What concerns me is the slippery slope that we are on. Sure, a child word, just a few years old and getting used to life, like "frim" is easy to attack. The gang of bullies has gathered around this tender child, knocked her down and are ready to try to kick her to death. I say "NO." Let us unfurl the banner, raise the roof beam high, light my candle, break out the tequila. Where will it stop. One day "frim" is got rid of, next day perhaps another newish word like "spam" used to mean unwanted Email will be axed. Then day by day the nitpicking, jack booted word police will get rid of more and more words on one pretext or another until we are reduced to trying to communicate with a few guttural utterances. Imagine scientists, poets, philosphers trying to communicate with "arrrghh" and "aye aye." A new dark ages will be ushered in made worse, and perhaps prolonged by the lights of perverted science. Let us, the DEFENDERS OF LANGUAGE, therefore conduct ourselves so that if we exist for a thousand years, historians will look back and say, "this was their finest hour." I would also like to point out that I was not the one who put the "definitions" section in the comedy article. If it is forbidden to discuss word meanings in Wikipedia, then the whole "definitions" section should be deleted.
 * Somewhere deep in my soul I do wish I could say wictionary, but I cannot, so my suggestion to the most determined author is to save the wikitext and fight this battle himself where it has the slightest chance of survival, if he feels he truly must. As for Wikipedia, dicdef, delete Sirmob 03:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, neologism plus unfunny clownish antics on VfD. Dcarrano 04:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no "strong delete" option. In fact, you can only delete something, you can't do it strongly or weakly. Just shows what an absence of intellect you are working with that you would write something like that. So sad.
 * You have, naturally, studied carefully the Guide to Votes for Deletion which gives meaning to both 'strong' and 'weak' votes. And you no doubt did that before making your comment. Of course, you are right to think that such comments advance your cause, and will persuade everybody so addressed to vote in your favour. -Splash 13:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a site for advocating neologisms. —Tokek 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. Cnwb 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable, neologism, dictionary definition, any which on its own would suffice.   Morwen - Talk 08:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Merriam-Webster cannot be expected to keep up with the language. jacobmc 12:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "frim". The Forest Research Institute of Malaysia is FRIM. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting invented words. Delete. Uncle G 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary: There is such a thing as frim, but it is not what this definition claims; it's listed in the OED as an obscure and now unused word. I have replaced the article text with the proper definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandesuka (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 July 2005 UTC
 * There's no such thing (or indeed person, concept, place, or event) as a frim, though. Your new definition is for an adjective, note, not a noun.  Please don't put an article in Wikipedia and then immediately vote to transwiki it to Wiktionary.  By doing that you have made more work for other editors to do, in manually transwikiing the article, entirely unnecessarily. Please write your dictionary articles in Wiktionary directly, especially in cases when that is where you want them to be. Uncle G 22:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki' to wiktionary. The current version of the article is just a dicdef. For the previous versio, i would want citations of its use, plus soem reson to think such use was notabable and the article ever likely to be more than a dicdef of recent slang or jargon. If the use in the "comminc misunderstandign conversation" sense can be established, that should go to wiktionary too. DES 20:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Move it to wiktionary if it were real, but it's not. There's no words even beginning with f-r-i-m as far as I can find, nevermind 'frim' itself. MrD 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)  (Another visiting Wiktionary sysop.)
 * Delete: NN, neologism. --Ragib 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If one of this article's solemn defenders can provide any evidence that this word ever existed, may he please put it forward now. I've been through the Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary and the OED, and I can't find any traces of "frim" whatsoever. This is obviously a hoax, especially when you consider that the author of this article, an anonymous editor with IP 24.20.76.42, placed a link to frim on the comedy article. See the diff. My vote is strong delete. Binadot 02:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a "solemn defender" of the original, stupid definition, but you didn't go through the OED carefully enough. from the OED online (subscription required):

frim (a) Obs. exc. dial. Forms: 1 freme, 4 frym, 6-7 frimm(e, (7 frime, 8 frem), 7- frim. [OE. frme:prehistoric *frami-, cognate with fram adj., forward, advanced, bold.] a. Vigorous, flourishing; after OE. only in physical sense (or fig. of this), luxuriant in growth, plump, full-fleshed.     b. Abundant in sap, juicy, full of moisture; rarely in unfavourable sense. Also of sap: Abundant, rich.     c. Easily melting, soluble, fusible.   Beowulf 1932 Mod ryo wæ fremu folces cwen. c1000 Cædmon's Gen. 2328 (Gr.) Ic am magorince mine sylle godcunde gife gastes  mihtum, freondsped fremum. 13.. E.E. Allit. P. A. 1078, & twelue syez on er ay beren ful frym [fruits]. c1420 Liber Cocorum (1862)  5 Cast on e powder of hare I wot; Hit is so frym, ren hyt wylle An malt as sugur. 1589 Mar Martine 3 Abbots were fat and friers frimme.  1600 HOLLAND Livy VI. vii. (1609) 221 Those nations that by long peace were most frimme and lustie [ex integerrimis]. 1601 Pliny I. 348 Many are so frim and free of milke, that [etc.]. Ibid. 463 The timber also is more frim and soft. 1604 DRAYTON Owle 5 The frim sap..From the full root, doth swell the plenteous rynde. 1613 Poly-olb. xiii, My frim and lusty flank Her bravery then displays. 1622 Ibid. xxvii, Her deare daughter Dale, which her frim Cheeke doth lay To her cleere mothers Breast. 1657 AUSTEN Fruit Trees I. 136 Seede plants are commonly more frim straight and handsome, then wood-stocks. 1669 WORLIDGE Syst. Agric. (1681) 224 If May and June prove wet Months, it causes a Frimm and Frothy Grass. 1712 MORTON Northamptonshire 51 The fremmest..that is the richest feeding land we have. 1736 W. ELLIS New Exp. Husb. 54 The shorter and younger the grass, the frimmer is the Sap. 1747 HOOSON Miner's Dict. Ojb, Potter's Ore..is so frim and fusible that a great deal of this sort is sold. 1750 W. ELLIS Mod. Husb. IV. i. 151 A frim growing time. 1888 Sheffield Gloss. s.v., This lettuce is very frim. Hence frimness. c1714 T. BATES in Athenæum No. 1982 (1865) 535/3 The frimness of the grass. 1736 W. ELLIS New Exp. Husb. 64 We..sow a Mixture of Clover..to allay its Frimness.
 * I therefore maintain that my transwiki the corrected definition position is the correct one. Nandesuka 13:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I also have no doubt that someone will claim that the OED doesn't say what it says (does anyone besides me have a subscription? I can't be the only one), here's a freely available that provides evidence that I'm not just fabricating the OED text.  Here's the early form of the word used in Beowulf (search for "fremu", in context means "excellent" or "lusty" or "vibrant").  I 100% agree that the original definition was idiotic, and should have been replaced.  But given that the people that posted it somehow managed to stumble on to a real word that isn't in the wiktionary, I think it would be irresponsible of us not to correct the error and transwiki it to wiktionary. Nandesuka 13:40, 21 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.