Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eumeterate

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 of the debate was DELETE. This is a close call, and User:Iamnotanorange, who wrote the first unsigned keep vote, is a real user and not a sock puppet. But User:Muke makes convincing arguments for deletion. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eumeterate

Not suitable for Wikipedia (dictionary entry, and a neologism at that). Plastered on Wiktionary and another public-edit site as well in an attempt to promote it. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 18:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. feydey 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article admits that word is a neologism too. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This word is in usage in everyday speech, maybe not everywhere, but it is an incredibly useful word. I understand your skepticism, but there is not other word for "to idealize at a distance" and its popularity is growing based solely on the fact that there is no other word with this definition. It is especially in use in Blogs, Livejournals, Myspaces and other cybercommunity sites. The idea of Wikipedia is that it can pick up on new facts before they hit the encyclopedias or even newspapers. And so Keep, I say. Keep
- Delete First off, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so no matter how needed the word may be, a dictionary definition of it doesn't merit an entry here. Your submission here was identical to what you submitted to Wiktionary and m-w.com's Open Dictionary: Wikipedia is for encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries. Second, the principle of No Original Research discourages the promotion of neologisms in any case. Third, as already mentioned in response to the etymology you proferred at the RFV of this same entry as entered in Wiktionary, your invented word is remarkably poorly formed. Fourth, it is a fallacy to assume that the lack of any word familiar to you with this meaning makes your inventing it worthy of inclusion: English doesn't have a word for "people who have never heard of Michigan" but that doesn't make the invention of such a word worthy of entering into an encyclopedia by itself. Fifth, claims of its (common?) use in blogs are contradicted by a complete absence of search results for this word in Google Blog Search. Sixth, the page is given to be assumed as a social universal when all evidence given for its use is limited to three or four people in Massachusetts and Connecticut; thus, seventh, not in use outside of you and your circle of friends and therefore not an encyclopedic topic. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this word needed. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=_midsummer

http://www.livejournal.com/users/_midsummer/58062.html

Delete. neologism. (and I propose "Michignorant" for Muke.) Dystopos 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.