Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuselarity


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Methuselarity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The latest blatantly non-notable neolgism to get an entry. Coined today(!). A speedy for this category would be great. Prod & Prod2 declined. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that the concept is the subject of reliable sources, let alone the term. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow delete because, as Hairhorn pointed out, the term was apparently created today. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NEO Billbowery (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, only citation indicates it is a brand-new single-source neologism. NTK (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Neologism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been begging for a speedy delete category for neolgisms, but there isn't one.... Hairhorn (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "No indication that it meets the guidelines for inclusion". Or WINAD. Alternatively: Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those is a speedy - the first describes A7, but that only applies to people, animals, organizations, not words; and WP:WINAD is part of WP:NOT and is #1 in the list of WP:CSD, where "neologisms" is explicitly #4. I have made this proposal twice (actually, I proposed that things blatantly made up one day should be speediable), but it never gets anywhere - people say that nonsense words can be dealt with by G3 (vandalism/misinformation), but I feel that's only appropriate where there is malice or intent to deceive, not where somebody has made up a word he thinks is useful (or funny) and wants to share it with the world. I'm afraid we're stuck with PROD/AfD. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 16 September 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.