Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automagically

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 {{wi}}. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automagically[edit]

Dicdef, already in wikitionary, doubt there are any reliable sources about this subject, though they might mention it in passing. Recury 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was probably created because it's in a few Wikipedia namespace pages. Danny Lilithborne 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too bad CSD A5 doesn't cover this possibility. MER-C 11:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a common enough slang term that's been around long enough not to be a neologism. But wikitionary is the place for it. Dlyons493 Talk 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment {{wi}} below seems like a good solution. Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable source (the Jargon File), in common use (2,320,000 GHits for "automagically -wikipedia"), and is just as important and notable as the many other Jargon File entries on Wikipedia like Quantum bogodynamics, Bzzzt, wrong, One-line fix, Shotgun debugging, Eyeball search, Deep magic, Autoconfiscation, One-banana problem, Blogroll, etc etc. --maru (talk) contribs 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's certainly at least as well established as most of those, so maybe we should be consistent. Personally I question their existence as well :-) Dlyons493 Talk 15:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other sources besides Jargon File? Recury 16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I've come across it over the years in technical articles in places like Byte and Dr Dobbs but don't have any definite pointers. It's on Usenet since before 1990 e.g. [1] Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning its usage, I'm just questioning whether non-trivial sources are available (that is, sources that do more than just mentioning it or using it). Recury 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhing I've seen has just been a usage which the reader was assumed to understand. Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, poss. include in computer slang. There's no real article here to be written. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in wikitionary. Recury 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{wi}} Let's at least let readers know where to find the definition; also, let's give people a chance to make this an encyclopedia article if they think they have the sources and can make it pass WP:WINAD. May as well leave this history, too. --ais523 08:50, 4 September 2006 (U T C)
{{wi}} works for me. It's a notable enough piece of computer slang, and there is potential for a more-than-dicdef. Guy 12:13, 5 September 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.