Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesquipedaliophobia


 * 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 redirect to -phob-. Dreadstar †  17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sesquipedaliophobia

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article is nothing more than a definition and even uses Wiktionary as a reference!! ukexpat (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to -phob- BoL (Talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete minimal ghits--just a dicdef. JJL (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand as the original author, I would like to ask for some help finding psychological sources discussing this issue, instead of a speedy deletion. At the moment it is just a definition, yes, but looking at expanding the article instead of just dismissing it could be seen as a little bit more productive. One of the concerns that lead me to starting this artilcle is Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, a faecetious [sic] expansion of the original, and actual, word. TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is a protected redirect that I just listed at WP:RFD. There is no reference to it in -phob- and it has been created only as an alternative to salting. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep so cool!NewAtThis (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not a reason for a speedy keep. — BradV 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Thats what the wikitionary is for Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 04:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand though the correct spelling appears to be "Sesquipedalophobia"--and least that's the one used for the 5 items on it in Google scholar. DGG (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete dicdef, already transwikied. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Transwikied, yes. Elaborated. No. That is the point of starting this article. And, I just read the definition of, and bollocky etymology about, hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia in -phob-, which in and of itself tells us more or less that hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is a satiric convolution, meaning it inherently need be suitably combatted. DGG is right - it should be spelt "Sesquipedalophobia", but that can happen after we get some encyclopaedic content. Hell, even if we just establish if it is even a real sickness - I can find nothing that goes past the four word defintion. Help. TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: After there is context and cultural significance and role in history and the like, then it is possible to consider whether or not it is encyclopedic enough for inclusion.  Before such, it's not even a debate: delete as dictdef.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Valid point. Could it not be argued, though, that historical significance lies in the fact that it could be fabricated? TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to -phob- - same as sesquippedaliophobia. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 3 April 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.