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 delete. W.marsh 03:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism[edit]

An unreferenced dict-def which freely admits the term is itself a neologism. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Wikipedia should strive to avoid self-reference, which is what this article is; the word appears almost exclusively in Wikipedia pages and mirrors, with very little use indeed outside this. What is on the Wiktionary page is sufficient, and this stub has no reason to be. In short, self reference + unverifiable + neologism = delete. For the purposes of full disclosure, I'd tagged this article earlier today with prod, this was then supported with a prod2, but subsequently the prod tags were removed. No complaints about this, but I do feel this article is misplaced, however, and so bringing it for discussion on AfD is probably the best way to decide this. Proto||type 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – It's a useful term, but I can't find evidence of significant usage outside of Wiki communities (the Wiktionary entry defines it as Wiktionary jargon; Google returns about 184 hits). Delete as nn neologism or possibly move to project namespace. --Muchness 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since The Oxford English Dictionary does not attest to its existence [1]. If anything, it would have to be a dicdef, anyway so belong on Wiktionary...which already has it...since they invented it! -Splash^talk 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - it is good to link to this, rather than Wiktionary when we nominate other protologisms for deletion. With wonderful double-think the article admits that the word may itself be a protologism. We have large articles in the (Main) namespace about Wikipedia; this article is a very acceptable self-reference. -- RHaworth 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. It would be ok in Wikipedia: space, and is emphatically unsuitable for article space. -Splash^talk 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as protologism... ah the sweet irony. Could be moved to Wikipedia: space if anyone is so inclined; I can see someone wanting to see this if it comes up on an AfD--Isotope23 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete ironically with Isotope23 Bucketsofg 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms; this seems to come up more and more often in projectspace lately, and having something there, especially if we can ensure that there are no article-space links to it, will curtail the desire to fill in the inevitable redlink later. Failing that, redirect to neologism or Delete. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We generally avoid unadulterated cross-namespace redirects, especially those emerging from article space, since it is unnecessary and makes life harder for those who reuse our content to know which articlespace pages they should/not include. (We use WP: so widely it is effectively a pseudo-namespace like Transwiki: and I'm sure the mirrors have cottoned on to that.) -Splash^talk 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to neologism, as it's really just a modification of that word. That page also has a link to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms at the top, solving both problems. -- Mithent 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wikipedia namespace, if it's not there already. · rodii · 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tail recursion. Mackensen (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a fairly new word, but 507 Google hits, even subtracting the Wikipedia mirrors, indicates that it is in use outside of Wikipedia as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per Muchness's stat, subtracting the Wikipedia mirrors gives you just 184 hits. And even then, many of these are still related to Wikipedia (such as hits from wikinerds, etc). Proto||type 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm..., you might be right that the term is not in wide use. But there is some off-Wikipedia use so I don't think we should have a redlink here. Redirect or merge with neologism then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Dangerous. This would lead to people saying (with some justfication) "Oh, so your little slang words are "encylopedic" but my company/invention/society/whatever isn't?". Googletest also miserably failed. Redirect somewhere sensible at will. Deizio 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This word is a protologism itself. 64.192.107.242 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 587 Google hits including wikipedia entries and 154 Google hits excluding wikipedia entires. So 75% usage is from wikipedia = not notable. -- infinity0 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google even asks if you meant something else when you type in protologism. This word is definitely a protologism. StarTrek 16:36, 21 March 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.