Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haikucronym

 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. Woohookitty 10:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Haikucronym
A neologism that gets exactly two hits in the same blog using the Google test. I personally think that there should be some way to speedy delete articles like this, but I couldn't find any criteria that it fit. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for newly coined words that don't exist in any other dictionaries. Blank Verse  &empty;  16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete. Blank Verse   &empty;  16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Al 17:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Great concept, but a neologism, still. -- BD2412 talk 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, it's a very clueless concept because haiku don't have titles. If it had been cinquainronyms, I might have ignored it and let someone else have the fun of nominating it for deletion. Blank Verse   &empty;  22:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting, but a 'logism still. -Splash 18:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Awesome, yet not notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delightful effort / lethally eschewing the / encyclopedic. Grutness...  wha?  01:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest this vote go on BJAODN, with enough of the article so it makes sense.-gadfium 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why thank you :) Grutness...  wha? 
 * Keep. "Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001 (taken from Wikipedia's own article on Neologism) Binerman 05:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate User:Binerman's POV that neologisms have their uses, but that doesn't mean they should have their own entries as well.  In the unlikely even t it stays alive and continues on to become "today's essential vocabulary", well, then we can start to seriously worry about keeping it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:17, 10 September 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.