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 merge to Anachronism. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parachronism[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:DICDEF that does not appear to be notable. Several dictionary entries appear in a Google search... and basically nothing else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anachronism, where it is already mentioned. This is a literary term that shows up in multiple reliable sources in Google, GBooks, and GScholar searches, but rarely more than as a definition. This essay at Tor is the closest I could find to an in-depth discussion. Nonetheless, the term is verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE, we should strive to preserve verifiable content rather than delete it. The term is already mentioned in Anachronism and a short definition there could provide a useful contrast with the more common term. This is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with merging to Anachronism with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anachronism. But it's just going to fill that article with even more original research. If TRPoD sees anachronism, he's going to turn it into a stub. I'll add it to the long list of articles that I'll eventually get around to fixing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the use of a red pen to edit Wikipedia is a parachronism :) More seriously, there are reliable sources for the word, such as Merriam-Webster and eve a piece at the Daily Lexeme in the New York Times, which links to a scholarly etymology at the OED. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 7 March 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.