Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimism


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nimism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After considerable searching, I can't find a single use of this term anywhere outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors. I tried searching:


 * The web, via DuckDuckGo and Google
 * Google Scholar
 * *The Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries
 * *JSTOR's full-text
 * Gale's e-book collection
 * EBSCO's Academic Source
 * My university library's database
 * The Internet Archive's full-text book collection
 * HathiTrust's full-text book collection

and couldn't find any normal uses of "nimism" (though they did turn up plenty of bad OCRs of "animism" and more rarely "optimism"). I checked the search results prefixed with an asterisk exhaustively; for everything else I went through the first couple pages.

There are two links here in Wikipedia: Index of aesthetics articles, which was probably autogenerated, and Macbeth. The second was added by the same user who wrote nimism. It uses the term in the context of Caroline Spurgeon's work, though I could not find the term used in any of her books on Shakespeare (I performed a full-text search of Leading motives in the imagery of Shakespeare's tragedies and Shakespeare's imagery and what it tells us on the Internet Archive and looked through references to Macbeth in paper copies of Keat's Shakespeare and Shakespeare's iterative imagery)

I asked the creator about this back at the end of July, with no response; while they haven't edited English Wikipedia since 2016, they have contributed on German Wikipedia, so they likely saw the message.

I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if I can find any uses of "nimism" that predate or don't trace back to this article, but I haven't been able to do so. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure whether it can be called a neologism if it has been lurking around since 2009 but there is nothing to corroborate it as a genuine term. It is not in Wiktionary in any language. As far as I can tell it is not in Google Scholar except as a mistake in the OCR. Fails verification hard and, even if it exists at all, it would be very far from being a notable enough term for an article. Quite possibly it is the author's own coinage. After 12 years fetch has not happened and it is time to give it up as a bad job. We should delete this and also clean up the stuff in Macbeth, which is astonishingly poorly referenced for an article about a topic which has been a subject of detailed scholarship for centuries. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to either be a WP:HOAX or WP:MADEUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and recommend that closing admin send it to WP:HOAXLIST. wizzito &#124; say hello!  05:25, 9 September 2021 (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.