Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendternet

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendternet[edit]

First, let me reassert that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one for neologisms (see WP:Avoid_neologisms. Even if it weren't, it's definitely a vanity article. From the page itself, this "term" was invented by the author, as he asserts proudly within the first couple sentences. Isopropyl 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, -- Ned Scott 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, dicdef, vanity, blogcruft... take your pick. The first sentence says it all: "The term Friendternet was coined in February of 2006..." --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tch. Be nice. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above -- Francs 2000 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had no idea wiki members could be so hostile. p.s.-If you took any time to see the site, you'd see I'm not a "he". (very observant) Who IS allowed to submit new terminology without getting pounded by commenters? Learned a real lesson here. The nastiness is unnecessary. Entry was made with no negative intentions, really. Ah well. Sarcomical 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel you're being jumped on here, but these things tend to get listed quite quickly. New terminology is generally unencyclopedic and is mostly deleted from Wikipedia: it has to be quite notable to remain. Apart from that terminology tends to go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Francs 2000 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francs, I see now the whole process a bit more clearly. And I appreciate your tone as well. So sorry for not paying closer attention to the rules. I'll probably not check in on it again and just let it drop. I'm not interested in making any debates over something so silly. ;) Thanks all.Sarcomical 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms refers. (aeropagitica) 09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to "submit new terminology" — ever. We are — or try to be — an encyclopaedia, and our job is to document existing phenomena, not to advertise new stuff. That's why so many people jumped on it at once. That said, categorising the article as "vanity" was unnecessary: if there are good reasons to delete an article, then they can be raised without the dreaded v-word that often causes offence; if there aren't, then mere suspected "vanity" is not enough cause to delete. By the way, Sarcomical, tea cozies (I note we don't have an article about them; oh, the same!) are designed to keep your teapot warm for longer. Nobody likes to drink tepid tea! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:14, 25 February 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.