Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic terminology


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Generic terminology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The title seems innocent enough, but when you read the article, you may have trouble making sense of it. Not only is the article unreferenced; the content cannot be referenced. I'm not sure how to explain this, but read the article and you will understand what I am trying to say. The article is the work of a single user. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's basically a list of words that are used generically in other contexts and ways that are not part of their specific definition. For example, harassment is listed as a wide spectrum of repeatitive [sic], deliberate annoyances. Since that is not the official definition of harassment, which is persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress (thanks Wiktionary!), it is listed here as a word that is often used generically, in unrelated context (as in "She keeps harassing me by brushing up against me in the hallway".) If you don't get it, that's okay because I'm starting to confuse myself now.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There are numerous different classes of linguistic meaning change and this is not specific enough. There are numerous examples of words with both specific and general meanings -- too many to list effectively. I know once there was a page listing words with meaning that has changed "significantly" (one example: mayhem (crime)) and it was deemed original research. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Strange article about problems with communication, written by someone who has problems with communication. Mandsford 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems to be just a list of a few words that happen to have broad meanings. Introduction tries to make a concept out of this but result is not clear. Brianlucas 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mandsford. Bearian 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The creating user is almost certainly a sock of a banned editor and the article can be speedied as nonsense, in my view. I'd just speedy it myself, but there is a very small chance Koopa Turtle isn't a sock.... see Suspected sock puppets/Koopa turtle ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 11 October 2007 (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.