Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protologism (2nd nomination)

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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism[edit]

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

Really small article. Is this really much different from neologism? It should be deleted and redirected to neologism. Fish567 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to neologism. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Theres a huge difference bdetween a protologism and a neologism. A neologism is a word that is relatively new, but there is no limit on its usage. A protologism on the other hand is in the embryonic stage of usage, and has only ever been used by the original coiner. So a neologism can be found in dictionaries. A protologism has such little usage that is is not found in dictionaries. 92.6.185.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see several discussions on the term in Google books, so there's enough attention to it from RS to pass GNG and sustain an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This linguistic term was coined by professor Mikhail Epstein in 2005, but since then, and since the first AfD in 2006, the term has gained foothold, and the article is well referenced to reliable sources. WP:TOOLITTLE is not an argument for deletion, and as IP correctly points out, a redirect is not appropriate. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 20 August 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.