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 Redirect to Emoticon per research provided. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotext[edit]

Delete. Neologism, "The term was created by.." -- No citeation, short and nothing useful in the article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge to Emoticon and make this a redirect, or edit to enter correct definition, but Neologism in either case. Emotext term was probably first menitioned thus: "CMC users have developed an electronic "paralanguage" (Carey, 1980, cited in Walther, 1992), to express affective and socioemotional information. These informal codes, which we call "emotext," may include intentional misspelling, lexical surrogates for vocal segregates, grammatical markers, strategic capitalization, and visual arrangements of text characters into "emoticons." Intentional misspelling often includes the repetition of a vowel or consonant to represent the accentuation of a word or phrase for affect, as in the phrase, "sssoooooo good!" Lexical surrogates function as parenthetical metalinguistic cues, as "hmmm" might represent a paraverbal expression of thoughtfulness or "yuk yuk" ; might express self-deprecating laughter. Grammatical markers include gratuitous capitalization as well as repeated exclamation points and question marks to add affective emphasis. Emoticons refer to short combinations of textual characters which, if turned clockwise, resemble various facial expressions. in Paper submitted for presentation to the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 1995, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA so this is not it. This article is WP:NFT Fiddle Faddle 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done some research on this topic. It is more properly part of Emoticon, and should be merged and redirected there. I am thus changing my opinion, above, Fiddle Faddle 06:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Emoticon#Emotext, where the "merge" has been performed with the version of this article's text that is not original research. Since emotext now has a valid place to redirect to, can we just change Emotext to a redirect and close this nomination as "redirected"? Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current article per above, although wouldn't the date 1995 help to make the correct definitionnot a neologism? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, neologism entries that credit the "creator" are seldom, if ever, worthwhile. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 10 July 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.