Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stay-giver


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay-giver


Proposed Deletion was contested at the last minute by 69.245.14.10 here. This is not a simple procedural nomination on my part. I strongly agree with the ratoinales given by Beeswaxcandle and 7 here. This is a dictionary article, quite plainly, giving the pronunciation, part of speech, and meaning of a purported word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's no scope for refactoring this into an encyclopaedia article about the person/place/concept/event/thing denoted by the title, because in fact this is a protologism (clearly invented by analogue to "go-getter"), and doesn't actually denote any subject at all. I had to grit my teeth to keep to the Proposed Deletion process and bring this contested deletion here. The contesting argument is feeble and completely unsupported by policy. But Proposed Deletion is, strictly, for uncontested deletions. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – Gritting the teeth once in awhile is good for the soul. Now to delete rational.  First, as mentioned by the Uncle G, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  In that the piece is no more than a definition of a compound word, I would normally say transwiki over to Wiktionary.  However, when looking for sources of the word, I have found no dictionaries that even list this word.  In other words (pun intended) a made-up word.  In fact the only thing I could find, as shown here,  is a reference to the opposite of a “Go-getter”, and this was proposed more in jest than seriousness.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Made up, WP:DICDEF, what have you. Realistically has no place on Wikipedia. --Lithorien (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as prod nominator / same reasons. Thanks for catching it Uncle G.   7  23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Users have the right to contest proposed deletions regardless of whether they have a good reason to do so. But, as in this case, doing so may simply be delaying the inevitable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though this doesn't look like it needs my !vote, I can't resist the oppostunity to vote on an article Uncle G nominated. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (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.