Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexophilia


 * 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. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lexophilia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Obvious neologism; article even states "...The term, a neologism and unofficial word of the English language...". Has no references and 3 [citation needed] tags. Delete it, and quick! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per neologism, lack of notability, relying on one source only, and a way to promote one internet site by definining one word that looks more like a dictionary entry (see talk). The article have survived this far just by accident. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 08:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WINAD (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not for dictionary entries used to hide spam) - Mgm|(talk) 19:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obvious and blatant neologism, not much notability. I get the feeling it's an attempt to promote the word or the website, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef of a non-notable neologism acting as a coatrack to promote a website. Nancy  talk  12:45, 5 December 2009 (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.