Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridonkulous

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 TRANSWONK TO WONKTIONARY and DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridonkulous

I prodded which was removed shortly. As I stated in the Prod rationale: Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang --Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the article has been much improved since I prodded, with some links to usage, but all are to dictionary entries --Fuhghettaboutit 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, neologist. You have just won a trip to Del Eté. Royboy crashfan 03:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neoprotodicdefodonkulism. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone noticed that one of the justifying links is actually to a dictionary of neologisms? -- Imban 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A truly Ridonkulous neologism. --InShaneee 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deldonkete nn, maybe wiktionary-worthy. Eivind 04:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move To wikionary, particularly if anyone can confirm it appearing in newsgroups and tv shows regularly. I've never heard of it myself.--Vercalos 07:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-04 07:52Z
Move to Wiktionary, it's pretty common at least where I am. Grandmasterka 08:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Only one of the 3 previous external links included source information. Only one of that source's citations is WP-reliable. (I removed the 2 useless links and added the 2 Telegraph.co.uk articles I found that included the term. I left the neologism site link alone because it's informative for editors and source researchers.) Wiktionary may find this meager sourcing acceptable. In any case, it doesn't belong here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism Compu terjoe 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, does not belong here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: It's a common term that has entered the vocabulary. It should be listed somewhere. If not here, then Wiktionary. User:DannyAnno
Transwidonkify to Widonktionary as sladong termidonkogy. Fagstein 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wikidictionary. I am unconvinced of the etymology given in the article. JoshuaZ 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to wikidictionary. I can see the word origin working, but wikipedia is not the place for it.Ayreon 20:32, 7 March 2006 (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.