Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hambycomb


 * 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 Delete -- JForget  23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hambycomb

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable dictionary definition, also a neologism.  TN ‑ X - Man  13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – obviously made up, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 13:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Neologisms - I refute this claim for deletion by its pure definition, every word in the english language was at once point an neologism. Infact wikipedia has an article based around several at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roflmao refering to internet slang terms which are not traditional words yet have been included in modern colloquial grammar.

"L337 5p34k" or "text talk" are slowly being accepted as a form of grammar even though the words are in essence non-words. LOL is not a word, yet wiki has an article devoted to it as linked above.

Hambycomb is a new word in use and to be fair, surely the point of a site like wikipedia is to provide a free range of information to whatever the case may be, Hambycomb is not in a dictionary and its doubtful that it ever will be, it is nether-the-less a word that would warrent an explanation since it is getting to be used more commonly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodfred (talk • contribs) I am transcluding this as an edit made by the author of the article. S/he accidentally removed the rest of the debate. TN ‑ X - Man 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N) don't seem to indicate that this is the place for this article. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic; barely even a neologism, since the article claims it has no definition. The argument that every word was once a neologism fails; notability is not speculative toward the future. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Neologisms - No set definition does not mean it is not valid. Most poetry/art that is listed on wiki merely states someones opinion, therefore not having a set definition of purpose. The arguement does not fail, and notability most certainly DOES speculate towards the future, consider backranims for 1 example of words transgressing their original purpose to suit another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodfred (talk • contribs)
 * Delete absolute and total garbage/vanity. Also please block the sockpuppet farm. JuJube (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I agree with Thegoodfred, this is not an example as it has no connection to literature or any other work. I more agree with JuJube:  It look more like self-promotion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolute and total garbage? thats hardly a convincing arguement, I sincerely hope s/he isn't a wiki administrator. This is not self promotion and if that was the case i'd gladly remove my name from the document if it makes you happy. At no point have I claimed to have founded this word, as noted this word has been attempted to be added to wikipedia twice (seperately) already. This word has several connections already within the MMORPG and FPS online gaming culture.Thegoodfred (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making a good case for this article to not only be deleted but salted. The fact that FPS clan kiddos think something is important is a pretty clear indicator that it's not. JuJube (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this word frequntly, as does my FPS/RTS gaming clan.  Now i'm never to quick on gaming terms as and when they come about so when i heard this i had no idea so decided to search for its meaning.  I couldnt find it on the usual "1337 sp34k" sites so googled it and eventually came across this wiki entry. New to the world of wiki so shocked at how you can all get your knickers in a twist over the inclusion of htis word, but surely if i know of it, and searched for its meaning no less, then it deserves/requires an entry into this site so other gamer slike myself can find its meaning/origin?  Neologisms/unencyclopedic/absolute and total garbage/vanity?? please, you sound like abunch of old fish wives.Kapustinyar (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Kapustinyar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And you sound like a pathetic kid. JuJube (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There we are having a friendly debate then this JuJube comes along and starts being insulting. There is no point degrading this into a 'slagging' match because I am trying to make a valid point here... and btw JuJube Kapustinyar said FPS/RTS I said MMORPG and FPS... I don't think anyone has claimed its exclusively FPS. Thegoodfred (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I would agree with TheGoodFred and Kapustinyar. I play numerous online games, including FPS/RTS/MMORPG and this word is being thrown around more and more.  I searched for a couple of weeks on different search engines and found nothing until this article appeared. This word is being used, and with more regularity.  So surely it deserves an explantion somewhere.  I can think of no better place then on Wiki. Now i don't know what JuJube's problem is, but you do seem to be making this a bit personal. Also JuJube could you please keep the insults to yourself as they are not constructive in this discussion.  Otherwise I will contact the site admin.Viperuk98 (talk) — Viperuk98 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "You sound like X" is not a personal insult, it's an observation. Sorry if you took it harshly, but I stand by my comment. JuJube (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whether the word is in use or not is irrelevant.  The mitigating circumstance is that Wikipedia is not here about facts or truth, but rather about what can be verified.  There has been no demonstration that this can be verified.  If WP:V cannot be met, the article does not belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if I go onto the website with the game to verify its original false existance and provide a picture on the listing, that classes it as evidence and proof and ergo permissable as an item. It will be done! Thegoodfred (talk)
 * Comment - Also, the word needs coverage in third-party reliable sources. Proof that the word was invented is not enough by itself.  TN ‑ X - Man  13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete at your leisure. Thegoodfred (talk)
 * What would you class as an example of a reliable source for reference in a 3rd party? Thegoodfred (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely the use of a word makes it viable. For example ROFLMAO which has been included on Wiki.  Which is not a word.  Is not a Verified word, but is USED alot. It's USE is what made it allowed on wiki.  As this word is also in USE.  Why should it not also be allowed.Viperuk98 (talk) — Viperuk98 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The applicable guideline is WP:NEO. I think your word might be a better fit for UrbanDictionary. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per Nihiltres. Non-notable neologism that should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - a non-word that is non-notable with no reliable sources to establish any information about it -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism with no references. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Applied on a different website... i'm owned many apologies when this is added.
 * Delete WP:NEOlogism, or just plain hoax? This "word" only gets Ghits on two sites, one of them Wikipedia. -- Groggy Dice T | C 16:55, 12 July 2008 (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.