Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia and neologisms

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. Secret ^account 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia neologism[edit]

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

Fails GNG and runs into trouble with WP:NEO. Frankly, I had a hard time just figuring out what the subject of this article is. There may be a few sources talking about neologisms' place on Wikipedia, but the concept of a "Wikipedia neologism," as the article itself states, is a neologism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the topic of this article? Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia? Neologisms first used on Wikipedia? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously notable, just previously not titled as with all the other "Wikipedia and..." articles. I have moved it. Wikipedia and neologisms would include all 3 of the above: Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia and Neologisms first used on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? - From what I can tell, this is some sections hobbled together based on times that neologisms in the context of Wikipedia were discussed. There's not a coherent line connecting it, and the general topic of neologisms in Wikipedia does not seem to have adequate coverage to justify existence outside the individual articles for the two topics.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I still am not a fan of the cobbled nature of the article and worry that it is potentially a synthesis, but I'm holding off on this !vote until I have had more time to look through sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete chaotic original research based on WP:SYNTH. "wikipedia and" is a slippery slope -No.Altenmann >t 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Part of the problem is that the article is a mess -- so much so that, as noted above, it's not clear what the article is even supposed to be about. Too much is unsourced or WP:OR; all that would need to be deleted. After the start of this AfD, the title of the article was changed -- presumably to help with this dilemma. However, as a result, the body of the article is now in conflict with the title. There's probably a valid article having something to do with Wikipedia and neologisms, but all I can think of for this article is WP:TNT. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (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.