Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squub

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma&#x0950; 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Squub

 * KEEP.Actually, I think it's quite interesting. Would this be the first time wiki has spawned its own new term? geovisualize@gmail.com
 * delete. wikipedia is not a place for promoting protologisms. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Daveb 13:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP.I think that to dismiss it out of hand as being flippant or somehow peurile is unwise. This entry presents something of a second rate paradox, but nevertheless it is saying that it is what it is. So I believe that for Wikipedians to act responsibly in this matter they surely must accept that a Squub is what it says it is. Its all very well dismissing this entry as a protologism, but where do you draw the line? to whit; at what point did "protologism" cease to be a protologism and enter the lexicon? I ask because the English language predates whatever point in time the word protologism was cobbled together, and it was only cobbled together to apply a label to a thing. So a body of guardians preserving our glorious language at that point in history in the same way that those crying for deletion are doing now would have succesfully prevented the establishment of the term "protologism" which would effectively render this call for deletion irrelevent, unintelligible and illogical. A Squub is a thing, and Wikipedians calling for a deletion ought to take measure of their pulse and perhaps re-read the democratic manifesto of Wikipedia before consigning this neologism to the incinerator.MarkM 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is "consigning this neologism to the incinerator". No-one is preventing the further use of the word, and if and when it does become more widely used it may become worthy of an encyclopaedia entry; at present it is not. --Daveb 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

May I therefore ask a couple of question that may appear to be facetious but in fact in neither case do I intend to be:

1. At what point would you consider the term sufficiently used to qualify for inclusion? 2. In general, is the acceptance of a neologism on a scale grander than 'X' one of the prime requirements for qualification?

In respect of question one, I would suggest that for Wikipedia to establish a quantity-quantifier system would lead to a similar situation as now faces the Kansas board of Education. A recent declaration that for a religious movement to qualify for the curriculum required 'X' amount of followers immediately prompted worldwide adoption of the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in numbers that swamped the Kansas Board's own "Tipping Point"... I use a neologism there with my tongue in my cheek you understand.

In respect of question number two, Could I ask that you consider that whatever figure you decide 'X' might be, it would require individuals of greater than that number by at least one significant other to conceive of and declare new words ABSOLUTELY SIMULTANEOUSLY for any evolution of vocabulary to take place. So even if you say 'X equals 1' then no new words can ever be brought into existence unless two people simultaneously conceive and declare that word.

I look forward to your response. MarkM 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's a neologism (see WP:NOR) ··gracefool |&#9786; 17:49, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.