Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizzaciously


 * 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. SpinningSpark 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Quizzaciously

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a neologism. May be better suited for Wiktionary. clpo13(talk) 06:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See this video for explanation... Fabrice Ferrer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, so not a neologism. Still better suited for Wiktionary, though. clpo13(talk) 08:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel like this should be merged into the Zipf's law page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.247.251 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism, Dictionary entry, barely used. An intentional internet joke word. Unsourced and lack of good sources. SPACKlick (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDIC. The math stuff makes it look like a candidate for WP:A11. ubiquity (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Fabrice Ferrer, this is not a neologism. Per the Vsauce video referenced, it is in the OED. It is also not an intentional internet joke word. Michael Stevens uses it in a discussion about Zipf Law. Michael's video has many good sources, but this article does not. This article can certainly be improved, but the instant popularity of the word is a great demonstration of the principles Michael was discussing. EricKent (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with this word, although you could reference the video. Andro498 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Andro498


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:DIC. It was the OED'd word of the day on 3 Jun 2013 . All the delete !votes have not done even 5 seconds of research. Mediocre. walk victor falktalk 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor faith to say we haven't done research. This article exists because of the internet popularity of a word with barely enough usage prior to an internet meme to warrant mention in the dictionary. Subsequently prior to 2006 it had only one mention on the internet that wasn't a dictionary entry and that was the wiki page for words used only once where it was notable for being published only once. There's no topic here to discuss. And there's already a wiktionary entry for Quizzacious. Is it relevant in a discussion of Zipf's law? Yes, it should be, But there's no topic here for a page. SPACKlick (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why it should be on Wiktionary and not on Wikipedia. But it should not be deleted. walk victor falktalk 11:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Anonymous talk page comments on the relevant page suggest that if deleted, it will just be recreated. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 19:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Zipf's Law. Benjamin (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable word, wikipedia is not a dictionary InsultedElephant (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content to Zipf's law and soft-redirect to Wiktionary. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not an expert in a lot of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, I'll just say that at least at this point in time, there isn't enough discussion for it to merit its own page, outside of Michael's video. WP:GNG In its current state, it really is better to put it on Wiktionary and delete this page. 2602:302:D178:B130:B568:47D1:E9C1:CBBD (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my question looks dumb but, isn't an internet meme around a popular Youtube science video (2.6M views in a week, and filled with verified and sourced info) a sufficient pop and cultural content for it to be important in human history, thus to have its own page on Wikipedia ? Also, why bother that much ? Would it take the place of another homonym ? Murazaki (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the above discussion. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2015 (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.