Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scamdoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 scamdelete. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scamdoo[edit]
Zero googles for "scamdoo", and it fails WP:NFT. From the article: "The word was recently popularized at Ave Maria School of Law by students working on a research paper that incorporated a scamdoo (as of then it was not named) because technical language was needed." As such, delete for being a non-notable protologism that's not in common use. Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, what are those circles with a line through called? I'll be using 'scamdoo' to describe them I think, although with no google hits, I must agree with the delete. A better place for it would be Urban Dictionary. James Kendall [talk] 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As of that matter does the Urban dictionary list it? If not,why on earth would it need an article of its own? J.J.Sagnella 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not in Urban Dictionary[1].-Colin Kimbrell 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are we even considering deletion? DELETE. J.J.Sagnella 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not in Urban Dictionary[1].-Colin Kimbrell 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As of that matter does the Urban dictionary list it? If not,why on earth would it need an article of its own? J.J.Sagnella 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Protologism. I like that word. Where did you come across it?MCP 04:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of new words or concepts. Kappa 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable neologism. Personally, I prefer the term "circle with a line through it." --Kinu 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and imagine a "circle with a line through it" and the word "Neologism" in the middle.--Isotope23 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom., us gov. seems to think those are generally "prohibition" signs, or "circle & diagonal" [2]. I do like it, though. Makemi 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Circle, slash, delete per nomination. Barno 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a Las Vegas, Nevada native and a graduate of UNLV. I am certain that I have heard the word being used around UNLV's campus to describe exactly what the article says, "a circle with a line through it." I can't say whether it is appropriate as a Wikipedia article. However, if as the article says, it was created in 2005, the use of the word has spread very quickly. Perhaps students at Ave Maria School of Law are claiming to have invented a word that has existed for some time. Or perhaps, the idea needed a word to describe it and people have caught on quickly. Either way, the words approptiatness on Wikipedia aside, the words legitimacy should not be discarded for lack of common use. By the way, if a word such as "Dirty Sanchez" has a place on Wikipedia, why shouldn't Scamdoo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs)
- Dirty Sanchez is a term in common usage, and as such, not a good precedent. It's relatively easy to find examples of it being used in popular culture (such as 555,000 hits on Google [3]).-Colin Kimbrell 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that it has been added to Urban Dictionary since the AFD opened, some time after 5 PM on the 14th. -Colin Kimbrell 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it seems like something someone made up in school one day. Dave 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI suggest reading this link of What Wikipedia is not. [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day]
It is a textbook example deletion J.J.Sagnella 22:20, 18 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.