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.Michig (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Second, I can't even find evidence that this word exists, other than fewer than two dozen likely ad hoc coinages that Google comes up with, none of them describing people. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. I'm pretty sure this exists, as I looked it up before prodding it and otherwise would have speedyed it, but as the nom says it is a very uncommon phrase. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTADICTIONARY is applicable in this case. This is an actual word. A google web search reveals one source from several links on the search page, that use the word to describe opposite occurring circumstances during some sort of archaic period. [1] - it seems to be related to antonym. Also, this does not seem to be a widely used word, but that is not relevant to this discussion ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator gave us technonaut too, a few years ago. A quick search reveals no person, concept, place, or thing by this name. This is not a subject and is unverifiable. The usage, primarily only by Louis Israel Newman, indicates that a redirect to antonym may be appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I would come up with "antonymous" for the adjectival form, if pressed. It's not an encyclopedic subject, in any case. Would not be opposed to redirect to antonym. MisterRandomized (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's only in running prose with a consistent meaning in the writings of one person. It's a protologism at best, and I suspect insufficiently attested. Anyway, the definition that Wiktionary would want is not this content, which doesn't match Newman's usage. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the dearth of hits on Google, this seems to be made up by the article creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2016 (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.
