Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garvage

Garvage was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

neologism, non-encyclopedic, with <300 google results, most which do not correspond to this meaning. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  18:00, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Same guy posted Garvana which I've nominated as a speedy. Delete both. - Lucky 6.9 18:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism and dictionary definition. Either reason is sufficient. Thue | talk 18:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with neoligisms? Both words are used regularly on BBC Science, where their meanings are clearly understood. Keep. Kiteman 18:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: nouns derived from names.... Neologism & dictdef. Geogre 19:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Kiteman: the problem is that this is an encyclopedia. We have the Wiktionary for dictionary definitions.  Furthermore, though, a word that is very new is jargon or slang.  It needs to be in widespread use before a dictionary (or Wiktionary) would include it.  The usage of this term is confined to an electronic forum, it seems, so that would be too narrow a usage base. Geogre 19:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Point taken Kiteman 21:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; I don't even think the neologism is significant enough to move to the Wiktionary or to internet slang. It's interesting, though.  --Ardonik 02:59, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)