Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptophile

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptophile[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition but moving this to Wiktionary is not an option because scriptophile is a neologism that nobody uses (or at least nobody uses on the web and isn't in my old 2000 page English dictionary). Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the wrong language. Honoré de Balzac used it in 1833. It is a French word, largely an idiosyncrasy of de Balzac, who used it in Les Cent Contes drolatiques much of which was in an imitation Middle French of de Balzac's invention. And Wiktionary already has wikt:fr:scriptophile. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The French word seems to have a very different meaning: "Collector of stocks and old titles" according to Google Translate. — Smjg (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, "Collector of stocks and old titles" is the Google translation of the French Wiktionary definition. If I try to get a translation "scriptophile" itself, it just leaves the word alone. I'm not sure how to tell whether this means it doesn't recognise the word in French, it doesn't have an English translation for it, or it's the same in English. — Smjg (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator posted multiple definitions of questionable validity on the same day, I PRODed them all & posted a note asking the poster to flesh them out. Nothing was done. Someone removed the PROD because it was PRODed same day as creation, I was going to AfD it myself. JamesG5 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you saying you've looked through all 117,000 hits on Google, and not one of them is a use of the word? @Echo1111: Did you make this word up, or can you provide evidence that this is a word in actual use outside of your circles? — Smjg (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe does not have to do that. We aren't lexicographers looking for word uses, we are encyclopaedists looking for documentation of article subjects. (You need more familiarity with Google, by the way. It won't show 117,000 results to look at, and there will not have been 117,000 results. That is not the way that Google works. Indeed, 117,000 is not even the figure that it gives to me.) Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the first page of the Google search gives a high number of hits (I get 106,000, same ballpark) but if you actually go through the hits, it stops at page 12 with a total of 115 hits so yes, you can check all of them. They're almost exclusively pages in French and the few pages in English don't use the word with the meaning proposed in the current article. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTDIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIC and a failure to prove this is a real word as it's being used. No sources, so fails WP:GNG to. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2019 (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.