Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SKILLET


 * 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, WP:SNOW, obvious neologism, we really ought to have a speedy category for "Me and my friends just made this word up." NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SKILLET

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

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Speedy deletion was contested. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what criterion would you have speedied this article? WP:NOT is not a valid criterion. (Cf. WP:CSD.) I dislike utilising bureaucracy to maintain editorial professionalism, but I truly don't think individual administrators ought to be making decisions as to whether an article belongs on Wikipedia outside of the few situations tightly-defined by the Community; that was my thinking in declining this, at least—and the Community's, in authoring WP:CSD. AGK 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable evidence of its use. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A pedantic remark: The speedy deletion request was not contested, but rather was declined (by me). WP:NOT is explicitly not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, but it is a valid rationale for deletion after an Articles for Deletion discussion. AGK 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, it it were up to me, I would have speedied it. It is clearly not encyclopedic and wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tavix (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Tavix:
 * I would delete it under A1 as there is little to no context in the article. I'm no admin so I may be wrong, but A1 seems reasonable. Tavix (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It does provide context. It says exactly what the word is supposed to mean. The reader is not left guessing. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about when to use the word, what part of speech it is, examples of the word used in a sentence, etc. I would agree it has some context but the CSD category says "significant context" in which it doesn't have. Tavix (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At its current state, I'd say a g11 would be reasonable as well because all it is doing is promoting the word, or G3 as it is vandalism (not contributing to Wikipedia whatsoever), or even G1, but that is a stretch. I'd delete it soon, because not getting rid of it is just encouraging them.Tavix (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see a pretty good motivation for G1. Usrnme h8er (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NFT dicdef. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:38, 22 December 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.