Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce willis is a robot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:01, 6 July 2006

Revision as of 14:05, 6 July 2006

Line 26:

** A neologism is something that's 'new'. This phrase is over 6 years old. This isn't popularization, I'm not trying to increase the use of the term, simply to report on what it is. It is well known by the people that use it. It is well documented on many forums and it will never be used in anything but forums because of the nature of the term. I'm not sure what the problem with the use of forums for colloquialisms is. Where else are you going to find phrases that people say to each other in that kind of context? --[[User:Terevos|Terevos]] 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', non-notable phrase (neologism/protologism). Let it catch on first; document it after major newspapers start using it in movie reviews. Not when a handful of people use it in a chat forum. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

** '''Comment''' Please note that Weregerbil does not seem to understand the proper usage of the term. Otherwise he would not have suggested to wait until newspapers start using it in movie reviews. The term is primarily a speech-only phrase. Proper usage of the term prohibits it from being used effectively in written form, which is why there is a small amount of net references to it. --[[User:Terevos|Terevos]] 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]]--[[User:Nick Y.|Nick Y.]] 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' per Weregerbil above [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Line 39 ⟶ 41:

* '''Keep'''. Weird, I came to wiki today to find out what the heck this even means - One of the guys at work used the phrase today and I didn't know what he was talking about. Now I know! {{unsigned|Meatsicle}}

* The article comprises an explanation of the usage of a phrase, coupled with a list of external links to people using it. There are no sources cited, and there's no indication that this phrase has been documented in any [[secondary source]] material anywhere, either in the article or in this AFD discussion. Searching, I can find no such secondary sources. This is first-instance, primary source, documentation of something that hasn't been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, and is [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not a primary source]]. The place for this sort of work is elsewhere. '''Delete'''. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

** '''Comment''' If that is seriously Wikipedia's official policy, there are a whole lot of articles that are currently in Wikipedia that are 1. Primary source and 2. Neologism. Shall I start putting them all up for AfD? No, because people look to Wikipedia for all kinds of information. Is it hurting anyone to have [[Ansible]] or [[Badonkadonk]] or [[Sock Puppet]] on Wikipedia? Should those entries be in Wikipedia even though they are Neologisms and/or primary source articles? I would argue they should be in Wikipedia. The primary source thing is to prevent falsification, not to prevent colloquialisms from being entered into Wiki. --[[User:Terevos|Terevos]] 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Obvious nn, [[WP:NEO]]. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)