Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-inista

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 redirect to The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements, since there's no evidence of it being in use in other contexts and the target article has a better paragraph about it. - Bobet 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

-inista

Non-notable suffix. Neologism. Most of its non-Wikipedia Ghits [1] aren't related to the definition given in the article. ♠PMC♠ 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR. Pan Dan 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm really not sure what the Google search is supposed to prove, since most ocurrences of the suffix would necessarily be as part of other words, rather than as a free-floating separate word. For example, Googling for "-orama", "-athon", or "-teria" would do almost nothing to tell you how frequently these suffixes occur in actual words. AnonMoos 11:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply. WP:Neologism requires that there be sources about the term, not just sources that use the term. The Google search shows that there are no sources that are actually about the term, because such sources would discuss "-inista" as a free-floating neologism, instead of just using it as a suffix. Pan Dan 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, due to certain rather basic facts about linguistics and search engine algorithms, the Google search simply does not do what you and PMC implicitly claim it does. Solely on the basis of you sticking to a claim which is misleading by implication, I vote to Keep. AnonMoos 13:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) Would you care to take the time to explain to me, clearly a lesser mortal, what those "basic facts about linguistics and search engine algorithms" are?

(2) Maybe you mean that there's a webpage out there that discusses "-inista" without using it in isolation? But such a webpage would surely use at least the three words cited in the article, wordinista, sandinista, and feminista. Google searches for feminista wordinista and feminista sandinista yield 0 results. A Google search for feminista sandinista yields lots of results, but none of the top results, at least, is actually about "-inista."

(3) Even if there are sources out there that are actually about this term, the article as it stands cites no such sources. It's OR. Pan Dan 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The most basic fact is that there would be many possible ways in which words using the suffix could be discussed without "inista" occurring as a free unbound form. Furthermore, selecting "English only search" on feministas sandinistas turns up http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1357745&trail=56 in the first ten Google results. Searching "inistas" plural with English-only search yields some interesting links too: [2] -- AnonMoos 13:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the results. But none of them (except for WP's own The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements) seems to be a reliable source, and all of them (except for WP) use various -inistas, rather than actually talk about the use of -inista, which as I said above, is what's needed to satisfy WP:Neologism. The only source that talks about "-inista" is WP, so there is really no material that -inista can add to what is already at WP. Pan Dan 14:42, 17 September 2006 (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.