Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boratisms

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:NOT. Keep opinions did not address the issue of it not being encyclopedic, we are not a dictionary. 1 != 2 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boratisms[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See similar discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugrats vocabulary (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefly slang words and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade: Dictionary. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supplement that explains part of what made the hit movie a hit (and what made it offensive to others). In most films, this type of spinoff is unnecessary. In this instance, part of the concept was that it was a foreign film that wasn't really a foreign film. Too large to be merged into Borat. Mandsford (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of misplaced or fractured language is well covered in the production section of the film article, including a number of representative examples. This is simply a glossary of those words. It is no different from the other deleted glossaries from other film and television projects whose AFDs are linked above. Otto4711 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to reference to reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encylopedias contain lists of factual information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of these have entered the lexicon, and if they did, they'd still be neologisms. People should be ashamed of themselves for parroting other people's creativity. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:Fee Fi Foe Fum basically says it all. - fchd (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (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.