Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of "refudiate"

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 per WP:SNOWball chance that anyone is likely to comment keep with a reason based in policy Pedro : Chat 12:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "refudiate"[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Malapropism / neologism coined by Sarah Palin that I don't think warrants a stand-alone article, despite a few mentions in the press. ~~The target article of Refudiate already gives a definition.~~The article's title would not make a plausible redirect, and Refudiate already exists as a redirect. decltype (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 08:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete WP:Point is made, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:No original research still prevail. Mention as an example in Conversion (linguistics) is okay by me. Borock (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Akerans (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does merit mention with the attached definition. The previously ascribed definition page "Refudiate" is itself slated to be deleted. The mention of it elsewhere cites no definition. So far the only proposed article that incorporates all three key elements - use, meaning and references is this one. (Granted, its not perfect.) However, the idea of this entire project is to solicit the input of others and eventually field the most authoritative article on the subject. Obviously, this is meant as a beginning, a 1st step to achieving the projects stated ends.
Many neologisms are examples of blends, but many blends have become part of the lexicon.[8] In Punch in 1896, the word brunch (breakfast + lunch) was introduced as a "portmanteau word."[10] The word "smog" was coined around 1893 or 1905 as a portmanteau of "smoke" and "fog". In 1964, the newly independent African republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar chose the portmanteau word Tanzania as its name.
"Wikipedia" is an example of a portmanteau word because it combines the word "wiki" with the word "encyclopedia." (Thanks to Ricky81682 for your assistance.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lic2thrill (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is most definitely not a word yet. any mention should appear in Palin's article, as it has some notability, but as an event not a new word.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 11:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We're not a dictionary. The end. Unless this word becomes so renowned as smog, as the original author gives for an example, it should not be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Neither this or "wee wee'd up" is quite into misunderestimate (itself just a redirect) notability quite yet. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEP, WP:NOTDICTIONARY - just a silly word that happened to get a few press mentions. RN 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A malapropism by Palin that the WP article's author is redefining in a way other than what she (presumably) meant to be a protologism. Also an obvious WP:COATRACK for attacking Palin as a nitwit. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'WP:SNOW Deletion honestly we have urban dictionary on the interwebs for this reason. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps we can ask Palin to comment on Malamanteau and possibly refudiate it as an appropriate article subject. That would be a reliable source, for sure, you betcha. uh oh, i hope xkcd doesnt comment on Palin's word, then this AFD will be doomed to eternally recursive debate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COATRACK. 28bytes (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given above. Contibutors to this AfD may be interested to know that I have also nominated the redirect Refudiate for deletion, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 24#Refudiate. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be at wikiquote:Sarah Palin as a gloss on her quote where she uses it? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all obvious reasons. Man she's dumb. — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 26 July 2010 (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.