This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Gay in Violence against LGBT people). Shortcuts WP:NEOWP:NEO WP:NOTNEOWP:NOTNEO A neologism is a word that is still in the process of becoming accepted...
Click to read more »December 2023 (UTC) Delete Violates WP:NOTNEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 26 December...
Click to read more »orphan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Clear violation of WP:NOTNEO Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Keep - May be suitable...
Click to read more »research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, appears to be an effort to increase use of a neologism term, which is what...
Click to read more »January 2013 (UTC) Snow Delete: Not only that, but it also violates WP:NOTNEO and WP:ONEDAY. I also think that there's a possibility that it might be...
Click to read more »Google search, suggesting term has a very niche and insignficant use. See WP:NOTNEO. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Business people seem to...
Click to read more »WP:MADEUP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO... also, agreed, Dr. Blofield- that would really let us not have to waste...
Click to read more »the requirements of WP:GNG have been met, and the concerns raised in WP:NOTNEO have been addressed—specifically, the article cites reliable secondary sources...
Click to read more »generous) it's undue. Roscelese (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per NOTNEO. The article does cite books which use the term, but one of these sources...
Click to read more »Lots of hits for holding them. Not a lot for explaining what they are. WP:NOTNEO--Savonneux (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Delete unfortunately and...
Click to read more »nomination is probably more about that side of things if its quoting WP:NOTNEO. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT. The main coverage of this subject is the Oxford dictionary...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NOTNEO. If anything, this is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a conference slated...
Click to read more »outside of the tax industry, it should not have its own article per WP:NOTNEO. Taxology is actually another word for taxonomy - [1][2] used since the...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is very much in alignment of WP:NOTNEO. This NPOV-violating article fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 24...
Click to read more »this fails WP:NOTNEO BrigadierG (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Delete -- per nom. No RS discuss this term, only random blogs. NOTNEO is exactly the...
Click to read more »for neologisms. Aneirinn (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO and WP:SYNTH (most sources are off-topic). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:39, 16...
Click to read more »discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Delete NOTNEO. could be mentioned in Candian law articles. Or get a listing on Mush L3X1...
Click to read more »(talk) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Comment You may want to consider WP:NOTNEO which has to do with the notability of individual words as well. L3X1 (distænt...
Click to read more »supposed meaning, "Loud Continuous Wonder". Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. jonkerz ♠talk 02:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »up. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »dictionary coverage)? Alsee (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC) More inclined to delete as...
Click to read more »(G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Currently sourced by a Wikia and a Youtube ref, and I imagine that's probably...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Just a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Delete As per above, WP:NEO...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO. Some use on the web (c. 500-600 Google hits), but no clear acceptance or...
Click to read more »up only links back to or scrapes of this article. Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO. Got deleted via PROD 5 years ago as "subject is a neologism coined by author"...
Click to read more »determine. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. It's worth noting that the creator is still introducing new neologisms...
Click to read more »words, it is a proprietary concept. Fails notability, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Speedy delete - cut and pasted...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO, WP:ONEDAY. Prod removed by Spawnvc, an editor name strikingly similar to...
Click to read more »others, independently of her usage. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly hi! 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTNEO. 99.142.8.205 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »article grounded in reliable WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Concerns relating to WP:NOTNEO can be addressed by performing a page move to a more appropriate title....
Click to read more »this "50 years" you mentioned. Source? As the policy on this question, WP:NOTNEO, mentions, "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding...
Click to read more »with no traction. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO, no sources of any kind found. Sam Sailor 10:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »term in the slightest outside of a TVTropes page, meaning it violates WP:NOTNEO as likely just a neologism someone made up one day. It merits a discussion...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Ahwbof84: The topic of the draft is unsuitable for Wikipedia, see WP:NOTNEO. Worldbruce (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Lincolnspencer (talk ·...
Click to read more »field). So the article topic fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:RS and WP:NOTNEO. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »I really have to do this by AfD? This fails Wikipedia:MADEUP, Wikipedia:NOTNEO, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOTDIC, and does not belong on WP. Fiftytwo thirty (talk)...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. It's worth noting that the creator is still introducing new neologisms...
Click to read more »Delete per above. --Kleinzach 08:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO; non-notable made up word. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »PROD removed. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO and no evidence of notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011...
Click to read more »07:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Delete Outside of my industry, but I think wp:NOTNEO /NOTDICTIONARY as well as the GNG would cover us here, pending sources being...
Click to read more »have caught on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTNEO/WP:MADEUP. Roscelese (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »genre either had their article's deleted, or don't even list the genre. WP:NOTNEO applies as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »by others.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO applies here. I don't see any secondary sources analysing this term, not...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly hi! 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »12 November 2015 (UTC) Delete per nominator. First source fulfills WP:NOTNEO easily. FrameDrag (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Delete for now until...
Click to read more »did come across this which isn't nothing, but this still seems to fail WP:NOTNEO. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Relisted to generate a...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Delete While TKing is certainly...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO This appears to be a term used (meh) by people at times, but evidently in...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOTNEO, no evidence that this abbreviation even exists in the wild. Prod removed...
Click to read more »proven not to be possible. Reyk YO! 09:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO WP:INUNIVERSE-only topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:15, 15 May...
Click to read more ȃireann 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Delete. Falls under the category WP:NOTNEO. Tangurena (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Weak Keep Its a hellish stupid...
Click to read more »discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »TWL) Seems to me like a neologism, so I think it should be deleted per WP:NOTNEO Ducknish (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC) This term has been in common parlance...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete per Cullen. Ansh666 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO, both Google Scholar and Google Books turn up zero hits for the term. Both...
Click to read more »real phobia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Delete: as WP:NOTNEO. No references for a novel usage of a term. Don't see why it makes sense...
Click to read more »or reliable. Mkdwtalk 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Snow Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Source searches are providing zero coverage in reliable sources for this...
Click to read more »double-PROD. Rationale for deletion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and per WP:NOTNEO ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books...
Click to read more »discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO, as in my original PROD nomination. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 16 April 2012...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS. A phrase that appeared in a one or two day news cycle is...
Click to read more »via Google. --RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. This has purely local interest. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)...
Click to read more »08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Delete per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Delete There are lots of 'C'...
Click to read more »Wikipedia draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO made up terms that have no traction. You can make others up like Covidology;...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The definition of a term fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTNEO. Does not meet WP:GNG. Ochiwar (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Strong delete...
Click to read more »Wikipedia to increase usage of a neologism is a clear violation of policy (WP:NOTNEO). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this article should not be in Wikipedia...
Click to read more »make a transition from a neologism to a widely circulated word. Read WP:NOTNEO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:16, 7 October 2015...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. The sources just refer to it being a new word. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36...
Click to read more »neologism: most of the internet sources out there are self-published. Fails WP:NOTNEO and GNG. Altamel (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Delete - A search for sources...
Click to read more »of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Delete: per WP:NOTNEO. DrStrauss talk 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »Yeah, this probably could have been speedy deleted but it should go for WP:NOTNEO anyway. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »about the term or concept ("not just sources that use the term", per WP:NOTNEO) are straightforward to find, such as news providers [1], [2] and books...
Click to read more »soup appears to be sourced entirely to the book that invented the term (WP:NOTNEO) and the blog posts and press releases of the author promoting it (WP:SPIP...
Click to read more »19:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Delete - Not a recognized genre. Potential WP:NOTNEO issue. Not meeting the WP:GNG regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 30...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO - this simply hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources....
Click to read more »expansion. Basically just a neologism, which should be avoided for articles (WP:NOTNEO). A redirect would placate the people behind traffic to this term and semi-protection...
Click to read more »neologism that violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Per WP:NOTNEO "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull...
Click to read more »Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. It is just a political slogan with passing mentions in news articles. Keep...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I am proposing the deletion of this article per WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICT and WP:POV. This is a non-neutral political neologism that has...
Click to read more »unreferenced.TheLongTone (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »HOAX that is being perpetuated by the internet. In any case, it fails WP:NOTNEO as not being used ANYWHERE ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 25 April 2018...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Appears to be made up genre by a musician who uses it to describe his own...
Click to read more »this, nothing came up. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTNEO. A meta-neologism of sorts, repurposing 'chauvinism' to apply to a different...
Click to read more »was added at 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC). Comment: This falls under WP:NOTNEO for neologisms. It doesn't matter how widely or not-widely it's used. It's...
Click to read more »18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. Plus per WP:NOTNEO. SITH (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »page documents an unnotable tumblr/twitter hashtag neologism (WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTNEO), seemingly to promote the term. A relevant issue notice has been present...
Click to read more »https://www.techradar.com/opinion/total-experience-a-trend-for-future-business WP:NOTNEO implies at least three sources are needed, and I couldn't find two others...
Click to read more »Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEO. The sources used are primarily tied to an independent blog that seemed...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NOTNEO. It's a term bandied about in the last day or so, and likely to never be...
Click to read more »Contested PROD. The article violates the Wikipedia policy on neologisms WP:NOTNEO. There are not may reliable sources that use the term, and I could find...
Click to read more »articles here (although Summers might be notable enough for inclusion). WP:NOTNEO, WP:OR Zingarese talk · contribs 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Delete the article...
Click to read more »Wikipedia to increase usage of the term "cultured resonance", contrary to WP:NOTNEO and/or to promote one author's view/usage of the term, contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION...
Click to read more »enlighten me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC) WP:NOTNEO was what I was thinking of. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:32, 14 August...
Click to read more »(G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Delete - Fails WP:NOTNEO. Lack of reliable sources, the list of games that are included is WP:OR...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unsourced. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »it thattaway. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. I also have doubts about the veracity of the article: the NY Times ref...
Click to read more »reliable source that actually uses this term. Delete as per WP:V and WP:NOTNEO Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC) The links in the article seem reliable...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT... Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not the place for neologism...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) The term Oprahization is clearly a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Comment: True, it is a neologism...
Click to read more »fall under WP:NEO SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTNEO. Ducknish (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »regardless of potential hoax status the article should be deleted based on WP:NOTNEO since it seems to claim that the term is a rather recent invention. Ducknish...
Click to read more »― Padenton|✉ 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A11, also WP:NOTNEO. This "phobia" isn't even listed at phobialist.com (not RS of course, but...
Click to read more »Time Warp (song). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. For a neologisms to be included it needs to be discussed and defined extensively...
Click to read more »it notable" (which reeks of circular reasoning). Please read WP:N and WP:NOTNEO. Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - even if the internet-famous...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO. The cited sources are passing mentions without significant coverage. Daask...
Click to read more »discussed as a a term in scholarly literature. It appears to fall under WP:NOTNEO and, even if it weren't a neologism, it would be barred through WP:DICTDEF...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NOTNEO, WP:PROMO ― Padenton|✉ 01:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »significant discussion about the term, is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEO. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Delete - Discrimination against...
Click to read more »Delete Don't seem to be WP:RS that take this away from WP:FRINGE amd WP:NOTNEO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Delete not-notable, also...
Click to read more »Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. The author (who has a conflict of interest) would be advised to digest...
Click to read more »use-mention distinction, a stated prerequisite in relevant policy like WP:NOTNEO. So it would make sense to delete/merge this one and keep the other one...
Click to read more »WP:GNG, WP:DICDEF applies here. Given lack of sources, I'd also go for WP:NOTNEO on this one - one man's use of a word doesn't a word make. Alexandermcnabb...
Click to read more »Astrophysics Data System yields nothing of substance. In my opinion, the WP:NOTNEO test for neologisms applies here, and in 2023 that test is not passed. As...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Obvious failure of WP:NOTNEO. I can make up words and post them on my personal website too. Not even...
Click to read more »share their belief this was an intentional hoax.) Also seems to breach WP:NOTNEO. Having hunted around, few sources seem to use the phrase at all, and no...
Click to read more »AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and possibly WP:NOTNEO. Where's the beef? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) The...
Click to read more »dictionary. Natureium (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Delete Per nom. Notneo it is. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Comment: I'll...
Click to read more »discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Delete WP:NotNeo GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC) If it were in English...
Click to read more »hand, I believe "porn groove" is a protologism and would fall under WP:NOTNEO. Even the article's single source doesn't mention the term. Moreover, there...
Click to read more »discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. If its proven to be an important term that's used frequently, I guess it...
Click to read more »nominator seems to be have mistaken as the article is clearly WP:NOTNEO because WP:NOTNEO states that To support an article about a particular term or concept...
Click to read more »links tidied.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Either that or redirect to Blithering idiot. Merge to List of Mitt Romney...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Delete. WP:NOTNEO. This subject does not in itself have enough notability to justify the existence...
Click to read more »Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:OR. I note too that this might fall under WP:NOTNEO as well. I also wonder whether the term "Nationalist Conservative" might...
Click to read more »The subject has some existence but miserably fails WP:GNG. Also per WP:NOTNEO, WP:DESCRIBE. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Nomination...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Possible violation of WP:NOTNEO. Unable to find any sources other than patents that even describe any concept...
Click to read more »independent of the subject. 93 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO "NOTSENILOGISM" or possibly merge to Glossary of Star Trek terms, if there...
Click to read more »2009, and despite searches, is clear that it is hardly used as yet. WP:NOTNEO does not completely forbid articles on neologisms - however, they would...
Click to read more »Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July...
Click to read more »North America1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTNEO, & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME - GretLomborg (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »2011 (UTC) Delete and Merge to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article...
Click to read more »referenced WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have...
Click to read more »Neologism that has attracted some mainstream sourcing. As an exception to WP:NOTNEO "Merge" would be to "use the term within other articles". I have reservations...
Click to read more »which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there...
Click to read more »2009, and despite searches, is clear that it is hardly used as yet. WP:NOTNEO does not completely forbid articles on neologisms - however, they would...
Click to read more »things. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Delete: WP:NOR and WP:NOTNEO apply here. DrStrauss talk 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »content.) Roscelese (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO and Comment Data Cube and Juno are likely socks of article creator Pewterschmidt...
Click to read more »both each other and the article ([1][2][3][4]). The topic seems to meet WP:NOTNEO, and point 6 of WP:DEL-REASON. I suggest replacing with a redirect to Pet#Domesticated...
Click to read more »"pogging" was invented yesterday, so this isn't a viable article either, per WP:NOTNEO. John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The above is preserved...
Click to read more »published within a day of each other earlier this month. This makes WP:NOTNEO a valid reason for deletion. But, the existence of the trend might be a...
Click to read more »September 2017 (UTC) Delete While it is an interesting subject, I believe NOTNEO applies here. If a lot more people would write papers on the subject so...
Click to read more »Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Delete per above, and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Redirect. Could this be...
Click to read more »article about a neologism, these are commonly deleted, as is explained at WP:NOTNEO - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) My business Page was by the...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NOTNEO. "Safetyism" is a term coined by the authors of a 2018 book The Coddling...
Click to read more »Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology...
Click to read more »August 2012 (UTC) Keep and move to curb trading - "On the curb" raises WP:NOTNEO issues, but curb trading is more descriptive of the topic. Redirect New...
Click to read more »Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe and Nosebagbear. Sam Sailor...
Click to read more »Synthesis Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite...
Click to read more »--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Keep but rename per WP:NOTNEO. - The topic -- the Senator with the longest continuous service -- meets...
Click to read more »neutral point of view. The article creator has a history of creating such NOTNEO articles. This[4] shows most of the pages created by the editor are on massacares...
Click to read more »because it is a WP:DICDEF. The other two might be true but run afowl of WP:NOTNEO. Suggest redirecting to Professional degree per WP:PAGEDECIDE/ WP:ATD.4meter4...
Click to read more »that Biafran education is referred to as "Biafranedu"? Quoting from WP:NOTNEO, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments...
Click to read more »to these events. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Delete: WP:NOTNEO: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hokkien American" and "Hoklo American"...
Click to read more »WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM)...
Click to read more »coined a new term"). The remainder of the guideline, and the policy WP:NOTNEO, explain why the article content and title are inappropriate, and I believe...
Click to read more »this are eith not reliable or not independent. E.g. this. Delete per WP:NOTNEO, WP:GNG, and bordering on WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Thanks. JoseRolles (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC) @JoseRolles: From WP:NOTNEO: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull...
Click to read more »the term "cinematic television" does not have significant usage. Fails WP:NOTNEO. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC) You misunderstand,...
Click to read more »deleted article) 1. The article was deleted as it is a neologism, per WP:NOTNEO. 2. Some admins may email you deleted articles, but this is unlikely if...
Click to read more »Should be either renamed "Conspiracy theories in the United States" per WP:NOTNEO (note that Wikipedia has no article on "Conspiracism" -- it's a redirect...
Click to read more »pointed out by the "keeps" discuss the term itself in detail. (From WP:NOTNEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite...
Click to read more »articles from 2011 when this phrase was used. Recommending delete per WP:NOTNEO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »term (and so are the Sun and CNA linked above), so this falls under WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC) According to your notes above...
Click to read more »mainstream reporting. It may just not have caught on yet but even so WP:NOTNEO could also apply. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Delete per...
Click to read more »not show long-term notability, and therefore is not in compliance with WP:NOTNEO. This seems appropriate for urbandictionary, not here. Their rationale on...
Click to read more »the literature. See use-mention distinction, as required in the policy WP:NOTNEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Keep you can't suggest...
Click to read more »moving these days, this term has already passed the stage cautioned in WP:NOTNEO, while having reached the inclusion criteria: "To support an article about...
Click to read more »found at Anti-Zionism. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Delete. WP:NOTNEO. It's a neologism and there's no justification for inclusion. Ducknish (talk)...
Click to read more »straightforward. Strikehold (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article...
Click to read more »Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEO. The article is principally built from editorial pages and opinion pieces...
Click to read more »it will not be published, as it is not an encyclopedic article. Per WP:NOTNEO we generally don't host articles about neologisms, unless there is significant...
Click to read more »viable search terms.--NØ 22:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom as WP:NOTNEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per above points...
Click to read more »be different. Bmcollier (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. This is a neologism which was first publishedpopularised in the NYT by...
Click to read more »speedy deletion? Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Delete. Not valid even...
Click to read more »request of the nominator on my talk page, for what it's worth. These fail WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources...
Click to read more »18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Do you think nominating this redirect for WP:NOTNEO makes sense then? 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »under this name hasn't been in included in the scientific discourse (WP:NOTNEO). Unless this specific formulation of the spectral method is covered by...
Click to read more »@MarkH21:I agree your point and they did not have in-depth coverage. But WP:NOTNEO is written that "To support an article about a particular term or concept...
Click to read more »other than his publicity of the term, it would fall into a neologism WP:NOTNEO. "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite...
Click to read more »support deletion don't appear to be applicable to redirects, including WP:NOTNEO, WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:SUBMARINE. The main argument for deletion is that...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article violates WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. Article is a partisan attempt to take a factual admission and inject pov...
Click to read more »reliable sources. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. Jmcw37's keep comment above goes against WP:NOTE which says "articles should...
Click to read more »article.[1] Neologisms require more to justify a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTNEO provides requirements, such as wide use, which Malamanteau lacks. Even the...
Click to read more »does not even need to be used (although others say it is used), per WP:NOTNEO policy, as long as it clearly describes the topic. However, some of the...
Click to read more »the phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom WP:NOTNEO. Was expecting to see some kind of product but no such thing. AngusWOOF...
Click to read more »(talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] WP:NOTNEO. I don't mind slang terms being used for redirects, but this is overdoing...
Click to read more »Widefox; talk 17:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Delete as WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Even better. Widefox;...
Click to read more »are examples. Anarchangel (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books...
Click to read more »WP:NEO. Aneirinn (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. - Amigao (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Keep per ProgramT. Might...
Click to read more »01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia policy is clear on this, per WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted"; the policy goes on to state...
Click to read more »violation of policy. Jojalozzo 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:OR, unless someone can add real references from some medical publications...
Click to read more »"what does this word mean?"-type sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »type of air pollution level back in 2010, so needs to be evaluated for WP:NOTNEO standards. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC) It...
Click to read more »needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite...
Click to read more »May 2020 (UTC) Delete. CrazyBoy826 18:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Delete It's such a specific...
Click to read more »WP:RS. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Delete as failed WP:NOTNEO neologism or foreign moniker. There are also non-notable people with this...
Click to read more »isn't in the article. –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO unless it has regular usage on Coulter's show to be mentioned like The Rush...
Click to read more »the requirements of WP:GNG have been met, and the concerns raised in WP:NOTNEO have been addressed—specifically, the article cites reliable secondary sources...
Click to read more »stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ] Redirect target doesn't match title meaning, WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOT#DICT #3, Google News search produces absolutely zero hits, google...
Click to read more »and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to...
Click to read more »Based on what you presented, I do not see an indication that this passes WP:NOTNEO: A neologism is a word that is still in the process of becoming accepted...
Click to read more »stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Delete Per WP:NOTURBANDICT and WP:NOTNEO. There is no mention of this term in reliable sources or academic literature...
Click to read more »engines. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Delete per nom as WP:NOTNEO. Revisit if PewDiePie makes it his catchphrase beyond a handful of mentions...
Click to read more »luck. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEO. This was essentially a neologism that never caught on.4meter4 (talk) 06:11...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete - For a number of reasons, the best of which is probably WP:NOTNEO. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Weak Keep - After taking a closer...
Click to read more »All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC). Delete all per WP:NOTNEO. TSventon (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Keep them. They are used by...
Click to read more »this "50 years" you mentioned. Source? As the policy on this question, WP:NOTNEO, mentions, "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding...
Click to read more »— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Delete all as above WP:NOTNEO. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Speedy Delete all These...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hakka American". When we have intersections...
Click to read more »means that it's not a common enough term in the grand scheme of things. (WP:NOTNEO) Wikipedia isn't a way to increase usage of this term. It's just not really...
Click to read more »outside Wikipedia (and sites that get their content from Wikipedia). WP:NOTNEO-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC) The two terms were created here:...
Click to read more »There is no standard definition, so we dealing with a neologism, and WP:NOTNEO. Definitions range from 1) being similar to a bug triage where new bugs...
Click to read more »means at best this is a neologism, which is also not allowed as per WP:NOTNEO--Rusf10 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Try this: A neologism is a relatively...
Click to read more »confusing redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Speedy delete - This is...
Click to read more »finding any results for it on third party search engines. Suspecting WP:NOTNEO issue with this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC) D=lete...
Click to read more »others, independently of her usage. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly hi! 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTNEO. 99.142.8.205 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July...
Click to read more »2018 (UTC) You're only making the issue worse with these neologisms WP:NOTNEO. Now you have to show references that each of the seasons are referred to...
Click to read more »article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO and not mentioned. The neologism could be interpolated indefinitely; Santa...
Click to read more »(talk) 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC) The more specific advice on Neologisms is WP:NOTNEO - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Hi, I checked this video with...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hokkien American" and "Hoklo American"...
Click to read more »does not accept Neologisms. You may want to try Wiktionary instead. See WP:NOTNEO RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) @R.E. Cloninger: Whilst...
Click to read more »use this as a shortcut for Metroid Prime 3? I want to make sure it's WP:NOTNEO There could be a weak retarget to Triple prime which redirects to Prime...
Click to read more »there should be a new deletion criteria for db-essay or db-term per WP:NOTNEO which stops wasting people's time and deletes them on the spot if google...
Click to read more »appears that WP:NOTNEO may also apply. GoingBatty (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) How will we escape the Matrix if there's WP:NOTNEO? Oiyarbepsy (talk)...
Click to read more »forgotten to add this. This should be deleted per WP:NOTURBANDICT and WP:NOTNEO. I don't see coverage in reliable sources that this is a commonly accepted...
Click to read more »is very obvious. Ca talk to me! 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Usage anywhere seems very sparse (only really found one outside source...
Click to read more »or reliable. Mkdwtalk 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Snow Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Source searches are providing zero coverage in reliable sources for this...
Click to read more »the internet signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »nomination is probably more about that side of things if its quoting WP:NOTNEO. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »Google search, suggesting term has a very niche and insignficant use. See WP:NOTNEO. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Business people seem to...
Click to read more »Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC) It is hard to support WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEO, or WP:NTEMP claims that it has a half-life of maybe a week when the meme...
Click to read more »Synthesis Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite...
Click to read more »pointless creation. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO as "Covfefe Missile Crisis". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 14 March 2018...
Click to read more »coverage in reliable sources 1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article Disagree - A...
Click to read more »(talk) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Comment You may want to consider WP:NOTNEO which has to do with the notability of individual words as well. L3X1 (distænt...
Click to read more »@Padenton:.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) @Tomwsulcer: Per WP:NOTNEO it's not enough if the term is used by media sources, it's what the sources...
Click to read more »discussions. Babymissfortune 15:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Delete DicDef, NotNeo. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be...
Click to read more »(G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Currently sourced by a Wikia and a Youtube ref, and I imagine that's probably...
Click to read more »Lots of hits for holding them. Not a lot for explaining what they are. WP:NOTNEO--Savonneux (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Delete unfortunately and...
Click to read more »of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Delete: per WP:NOTNEO. DrStrauss talk 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »nominator seems to be have mistaken as the article is clearly WP:NOTNEO because WP:NOTNEO states that To support an article about a particular term or concept...
Click to read more »significant discussion about the term, is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEO. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Delete - Discrimination against...
Click to read more »Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Like I said in the last discussion, unless it's a synonym or misspelling...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Possible violation of WP:NOTNEO. Unable to find any sources other than patents that even describe any concept...
Click to read more »independent of the subject. 93 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO "NOTSENILOGISM" or possibly merge to Glossary of Star Trek terms, if there...
Click to read more »Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. The author (who has a conflict of interest) would be advised to digest...
Click to read more »research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, appears to be an effort to increase use of a neologism term, which is what...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT... Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not the place for neologism...
Click to read more »up. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. It's worth noting that the creator is still introducing new neologisms...
Click to read more »"what does this word mean?"-type sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS. A phrase that appeared in a one or two day news cycle is...
Click to read more »Wikipedia usually should not have articles on neologisms and the like (WP:NOTNEO), unless they are of high notability, which could not be shown in this case...
Click to read more »be different. Bmcollier (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. This is a neologism which was first publishedpopularised in the NYT by...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Obvious failure of WP:NOTNEO. I can make up words and post them on my personal website too. Not even...
Click to read more »was added at 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC). Comment: This falls under WP:NOTNEO for neologisms. It doesn't matter how widely or not-widely it's used. It's...
Click to read more »discussions. Babymissfortune 15:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Delete DicDef, NotNeo. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »this, nothing came up. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTNEO. A meta-neologism of sorts, repurposing 'chauvinism' to apply to a different...
Click to read more »WP:MADEUP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO... also, agreed, Dr. Blofield- that would really let us not have to waste...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hakka American". When we have intersections...
Click to read more »Time Warp (song). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. For a neologisms to be included it needs to be discussed and defined extensively...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NOTNEO, WP:PROMO ― Padenton|✉ 01:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO, WP:ONEDAY. Prod removed by Spawnvc, an editor name strikingly similar to...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO. Some use on the web (c. 500-600 Google hits), but no clear acceptance or...
Click to read more »by others.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO applies here. I don't see any secondary sources analysing this term, not...
Click to read more »outside of the tax industry, it should not have its own article per WP:NOTNEO. Taxology is actually another word for taxonomy - [1][2] used since the...
Click to read more »neutral point of view. The article creator has a history of creating such NOTNEO articles. This[33] shows most of the pages created by the editor are on...
Click to read more »published within a day of each other earlier this month. This makes WP:NOTNEO a valid reason for deletion. But, the existence of the trend might be a...
Click to read more »generous) it's undue. Roscelese (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per NOTNEO. The article does cite books which use the term, but one of these sources...
Click to read more »neologism: most of the internet sources out there are self-published. Fails WP:NOTNEO and GNG. Altamel (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Delete - A search for sources...
Click to read more »via Google. --RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. This has purely local interest. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)...
Click to read more »TWL) Seems to me like a neologism, so I think it should be deleted per WP:NOTNEO Ducknish (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC) This term has been in common parlance...
Click to read more »than here. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Weak merge or weak keep....
Click to read more »articles from 2011 when this phrase was used. Recommending delete per WP:NOTNEO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »things. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Delete: WP:NOR and WP:NOTNEO apply here. DrStrauss talk 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »have caught on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTNEO/WP:MADEUP. Roscelese (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete - For a number of reasons, the best of which is probably WP:NOTNEO. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Weak Keep - After taking a closer...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOTNEO, no evidence that this abbreviation even exists in the wild. Prod removed...
Click to read more »links tidied.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Either that or redirect to Blithering idiot. Merge to List of Mitt Romney...
Click to read more »straightforward. Strikehold (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article...
Click to read more »reliable sources. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. Jmcw37's keep comment above goes against WP:NOTE which says "articles should...
Click to read more »18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. Plus per WP:NOTNEO. SITH (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOT, namely, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Again, this is not a...
Click to read more »HOAX that is being perpetuated by the internet. In any case, it fails WP:NOTNEO as not being used ANYWHERE ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 25 April 2018...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO This appears to be a term used (meh) by people at times, but evidently in...
Click to read more »discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Appears to be made up genre by a musician who uses it to describe his own...
Click to read more »neologism that violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Per WP:NOTNEO "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull...
Click to read more »Wikipedia usually should not have articles on neologisms and the like (WP:NOTNEO), unless they are of high notability, which could not be shown in this case...
Click to read more »that refutes your comment. This has been mentioned above. [27] I think WP:NOTNEO is the most relevant part of policy here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 10...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. The sources just refer to it being a new word. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36...
Click to read more »does not even need to be used (although others say it is used), per WP:NOTNEO policy, as long as it clearly describes the topic. However, some of the...
Click to read more »coined a new term"). The remainder of the guideline, and the policy WP:NOTNEO, explain why the article content and title are inappropriate, and I believe...
Click to read more »it thattaway. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. I also have doubts about the veracity of the article: the NY Times ref...
Click to read more »Wikipedia to increase usage of a neologism is a clear violation of policy (WP:NOTNEO). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this article should not be in Wikipedia...
Click to read more »the term "cinematic television" does not have significant usage. Fails WP:NOTNEO. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC) You misunderstand,...
Click to read more »referenced WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have...
Click to read more »occurrences were made up by the authors with different intended meanings. Note WP:NOTNEO. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying...
Click to read more »which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there...
Click to read more »Thanks. JoseRolles (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC) @JoseRolles: From WP:NOTNEO: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NOTNEO. It's a term bandied about in the last day or so, and likely to never be...
Click to read more »unlikely to pass review, none of the sources mention the word. Guidance at WP:NOTNEO. As to your question, see WP:AUTO and WP:MOVE. But as I said, if you move...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NOTNEO. If anything, this is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a conference slated...
Click to read more »I really have to do this by AfD? This fails Wikipedia:MADEUP, Wikipedia:NOTNEO, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOTDIC, and does not belong on WP. Fiftytwo thirty (talk)...
Click to read more »discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The definition of a term fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTNEO. Does not meet WP:GNG. Ochiwar (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Strong delete...
Click to read more »Delete per above. --Kleinzach 08:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO; non-notable made up word. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »under this name hasn't been in included in the scientific discourse (WP:NOTNEO). Unless this specific formulation of the spectral method is covered by...
Click to read more »history | links | watch | logs) Nominator's rationale: Delete; neologism (WP:NOTNEO). Parent article has been PRODded. The artists mentioned in the deleted...
Click to read more »@MarkH21:I agree your point and they did not have in-depth coverage. But WP:NOTNEO is written that "To support an article about a particular term or concept...
Click to read more »discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Delete NOTNEO. could be mentioned in Candian law articles. Or get a listing on Mush L3X1...
Click to read more »Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. It is just a political slogan with passing mentions in news articles. Keep...
Click to read more »discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. If its proven to be an important term that's used frequently, I guess it...
Click to read more »expansion. Basically just a neologism, which should be avoided for articles (WP:NOTNEO). A redirect would placate the people behind traffic to this term and semi-protection...
Click to read more »@Padenton:.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) @Tomwsulcer: Per WP:NOTNEO it's not enough if the term is used by media sources, it's what the sources...
Click to read more »01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia policy is clear on this, per WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted"; the policy goes on to state...
Click to read more »found at Anti-Zionism. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Delete. WP:NOTNEO. It's a neologism and there's no justification for inclusion. Ducknish (talk)...
Click to read more »--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Keep but rename per WP:NOTNEO. - The topic -- the Senator with the longest continuous service -- meets...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO - this simply hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources....
Click to read more »make a transition from a neologism to a widely circulated word. Read WP:NOTNEO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:16, 7 October 2015...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOT, namely, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Again, this is not a...
Click to read more »content.) Roscelese (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO and Comment Data Cube and Juno are likely socks of article creator Pewterschmidt...
Click to read more »violation of policy. Jojalozzo 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:OR, unless someone can add real references from some medical publications...
Click to read more »field). So the article topic fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:RS and WP:NOTNEO. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »term (and so are the Sun and CNA linked above), so this falls under WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC) According to your notes above...
Click to read more »means that it's not a common enough term in the grand scheme of things. (WP:NOTNEO) Wikipedia isn't a way to increase usage of this term. It's just not really...
Click to read more »19:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Delete - Not a recognized genre. Potential WP:NOTNEO issue. Not meeting the WP:GNG regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 30...
Click to read more »each other and the article ([28][29][30][31]). The topic seems to meet WP:NOTNEO, and point 6 of WP:DEL-REASON. I suggest replacing with a redirect to Pet#Domesticated...
Click to read more »enlighten me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC) WP:NOTNEO was what I was thinking of. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:32, 14 August...
Click to read more »precisely, some people have tried this, and have all failed). Please see WP:NOTNEO for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Hi...
Click to read more »unreferenced.TheLongTone (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »(G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Delete - Fails WP:NOTNEO. Lack of reliable sources, the list of games that are included is WP:OR...
Click to read more »Contested PROD. The article violates the Wikipedia policy on neologisms WP:NOTNEO. There are not may reliable sources that use the term, and I could find...
Click to read more »January 2017 (UTC) Delete as it seems to me to perhaps qualify under WP:NOTNEO. I don't see anything specifically indicating that the topic has received...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO, as in my original PROD nomination. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 16 April 2012...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) The term Oprahization is clearly a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Comment: True, it is a neologism...
Click to read more »genre either had their article's deleted, or don't even list the genre. WP:NOTNEO applies as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article violates WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. Article is a partisan attempt to take a factual admission and inject pov...
Click to read more »page documents an unnotable tumblr/twitter hashtag neologism (WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTNEO), seemingly to promote the term. A relevant issue notice has been present...
Click to read more »September 2017 (UTC) Delete While it is an interesting subject, I believe NOTNEO applies here. If a lot more people would write papers on the subject so...
Click to read more »article.[16] Neologisms require more to justify a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTNEO provides requirements, such as wide use, which Malamanteau lacks. Even the...
Click to read more »PROD removed. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO and no evidence of notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011...
Click to read more »[1][2][3][4] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, even if it is used to describe authentic Mexican food. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:38...
Click to read more »not show long-term notability, and therefore is not in compliance with WP:NOTNEO. This seems appropriate for urbandictionary, not here. Their rationale on...
Click to read more »12 November 2015 (UTC) Delete per nominator. First source fulfills WP:NOTNEO easily. FrameDrag (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Delete for now until...
Click to read more »North America1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTNEO, & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME - GretLomborg (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to...
Click to read more »fall under WP:NEO SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTNEO. Ducknish (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »with no traction. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO, no sources of any kind found. Sam Sailor 10:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »The subject has some existence but miserably fails WP:GNG. Also per WP:NOTNEO, WP:DESCRIBE. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Nomination...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO. The cited sources are passing mentions without significant coverage. Daask...
Click to read more »2011 (UTC) Delete and Merge to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article...
Click to read more »that refutes your comment. This has been mentioned above. [48] I think WP:NOTNEO is the most relevant part of policy here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 10...
Click to read more »proven not to be possible. Reyk YO! 09:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEO WP:INUNIVERSE-only topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:15, 15 May...
Click to read more ȃireann 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Delete. Falls under the category WP:NOTNEO. Tangurena (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Weak Keep Its a hellish stupid...
Click to read more »August 2012 (UTC) Keep and move to curb trading - "On the curb" raises WP:NOTNEO issues, but curb trading is more descriptive of the topic. Redirect New...
Click to read more »better question is, if these sources don't establish notability and WP:NOTNEO what kind of sources do? Valoem talk contrib 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »hand, I believe "porn groove" is a protologism and would fall under WP:NOTNEO. Even the article's single source doesn't mention the term. Moreover, there...
Click to read more »reliable source that actually uses this term. Delete as per WP:V and WP:NOTNEO Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC) The links in the article seem reliable...
Click to read more »dictionary. Natureium (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Delete Per nom. Notneo it is. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Comment: I'll...
Click to read more »words, it is a proprietary concept. Fails notability, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Speedy delete - cut and pasted...
Click to read more »did come across this which isn't nothing, but this still seems to fail WP:NOTNEO. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Relisted to generate a...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Delete. WP:NOTNEO. This subject does not in itself have enough notability to justify the existence...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Just a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Delete As per above, WP:NEO...
Click to read more »January 2017 (UTC) Delete as it seems to me to perhaps qualify under WP:NOTNEO. I don't see anything specifically indicating that the topic has received...
Click to read more »Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEO. The sources used are primarily tied to an independent blog that seemed...
Click to read more »08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Delete per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Delete There are lots of 'C'...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTNEO. Got deleted via PROD 5 years ago as "subject is a neologism coined by author"...
Click to read more »up only links back to or scrapes of this article. Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Delete or Merge due to WP:NOTNEO and WP:RECENTISM. There is no evidence this word will be in use in a few...
Click to read more »dictionary coverage)? Alsee (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC) More inclined to delete as...
Click to read more »Delete Don't seem to be WP:RS that take this away from WP:FRINGE amd WP:NOTNEO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Delete not-notable, also...
Click to read more »07:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Delete Outside of my industry, but I think wp:NOTNEO /NOTDICTIONARY as well as the GNG would cover us here, pending sources being...
Click to read more »Wikipedia to increase usage of the term "cultured resonance", contrary to WP:NOTNEO and/or to promote one author's view/usage of the term, contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION...
Click to read more »double-PROD. Rationale for deletion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and per WP:NOTNEO ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books...
Click to read more »supposed meaning, "Loud Continuous Wonder". Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. jonkerz ♠talk 02:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »Yeah, this probably could have been speedy deleted but it should go for WP:NOTNEO anyway. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »it notable" (which reeks of circular reasoning). Please read WP:N and WP:NOTNEO. Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - even if the internet-famous...
Click to read more »articles here (although Summers might be notable enough for inclusion). WP:NOTNEO, WP:OR Zingarese talk · contribs 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Delete the article...
Click to read more »04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Comment. Yes, that is entirely true. From WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often...
Click to read more »― Padenton|✉ 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A11, also WP:NOTNEO. This "phobia" isn't even listed at phobialist.com (not RS of course, but...
Click to read more »better question is, if these sources don't establish notability and WP:NOTNEO what kind of sources do? Valoem talk contrib 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete per Cullen. Ansh666 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTNEO, both Google Scholar and Google Books turn up zero hits for the term. Both...
Click to read more »regardless of potential hoax status the article should be deleted based on WP:NOTNEO since it seems to claim that the term is a rather recent invention. Ducknish...
Click to read more »Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Delete - per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Delete While TKing is certainly...
Click to read more »sources I found (and also suggest that an AfD might be in order per WP:NOTNEO). If I weren't able to find any reliable sources substantiating the existence...
Click to read more »possibly merged into Rachel Dolezal. As many have noted, this fails WP:NOTNEO. There is also no evidence that any attention to this term will extend beyond...
Click to read more »coverage in reliable sources 1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article Disagree - A...
Click to read more »because they are attempts to increase usage of a term (said in policy WP:NOTNEO), and I think for the same rationale it would be inappropriate to add 'macacagate'...
Click to read more »respected news websites, and such like. You can read more about this at WP:NOTNEO. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) You could try submitting...
Click to read more »possibly merged into Rachel Dolezal. As many have noted, this fails WP:NOTNEO. There is also no evidence that any attention to this term will extend beyond...
Click to read more »but newly-invented and not yet established, word like this. See also WP:NOTNEO and WP:No original research. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »means at best this is a neologism, which is also not allowed as per WP:NOTNEO--Rusf10 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Try this: A neologism is a relatively...
Click to read more »based on my searches, it looks to be a reference to some kind of meme. WP:NOTNEO.) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Delete, looks like...
Click to read more »04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Comment. Yes, that is entirely true. From WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often...
Click to read more »2026-08-01T16:14:16Z (diff; had been pending for 8 days) Fail Fails WP:NOTNEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Declined Draft:Will Angus at 2026-08-01T16:25:15Z...
Click to read more »the grounds that they either did only mention the term (thus failing WP:NOTNEO) or that they didn't meet WP:SIGCOV standards; these points were only weakly...
Click to read more »(talk) 10:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Merge with Light rail. Clearly fails WP:NOTNEO. We don't invent English language terms.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 22 August...
Click to read more »BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Delete or Merge due to WP:NOTNEO and WP:RECENTISM. There is no evidence this word will be in use in a few...
Click to read more »stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Unmentioned neologism; WP:NOTNEO and WP:RDELETE p. 8. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NOTNEO conerns and Northamerica1000.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »25 September 2023 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and suggest this fails WP:NOTNEO. There is no doubt that Sagan wrote the "extraordinary claims" statement...
Click to read more »the grounds that they either did only mention the term (thus failing WP:NOTNEO) or that they didn't meet WP:SIGCOV standards; these points were only weakly...
Click to read more »article grounded in reliable WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Concerns relating to WP:NOTNEO can be addressed by performing a page move to a more appropriate title....
Click to read more »WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in...
Click to read more »common usage to refer to sporks in that way, which there isn't. See also WP:NOTNEO for more details. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Weak keep. Meh...
Click to read more »Llll5032 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Adding: The PAGs about neologisms, WP:NOTNEO and MOS:NEO (respectively, within the cautionary "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"...
Click to read more »little to no usage in reliable sources are not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTNEO. Tollens (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Delete - You make a good point...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I am proposing the deletion of this article per WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICT and WP:POV. This is a non-neutral political neologism that has...
Click to read more »believable redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Delete as a realist, "sci" is...
Click to read more »that this article warrants deletion on the basis of "violates WP:NOTNEO" as WP:NOTNEO mentions "To support an article about a particular term or concept...
Click to read more »needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite...
Click to read more »December 2023 (UTC) Delete Violates WP:NOTNEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 26 December...
Click to read more »secondary sources then it could pull itself out of WP:NOTNEO. As is, seems like textbook WP:NOTNEO. However, I strongly agree with Lijil that pejorative...
Click to read more »May 2023 (UTC) Delete. If anywhere, this is a matter for wiktionary (WP:NOTNEO). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Keep: Doesn't match any...
Click to read more »for neologisms. Aneirinn (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO and WP:SYNTH (most sources are off-topic). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:39, 16...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is very much in alignment of WP:NOTNEO. This NPOV-violating article fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 24...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM)...
Click to read more »this fails WP:NOTNEO BrigadierG (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Delete -- per nom. No RS discuss this term, only random blogs. NOTNEO is exactly the...
Click to read more »WP:GNG, WP:DICDEF applies here. Given lack of sources, I'd also go for WP:NOTNEO on this one - one man's use of a word doesn't a word make. Alexandermcnabb...
Click to read more »mainstream reporting. It may just not have caught on yet but even so WP:NOTNEO could also apply. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Delete per...
Click to read more »soup appears to be sourced entirely to the book that invented the term (WP:NOTNEO) and the blog posts and press releases of the author promoting it (WP:SPIP...
Click to read more »AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and possibly WP:NOTNEO. Where's the beef? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) The...
Click to read more »(talk) 10:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Merge with Light rail. Clearly fails WP:NOTNEO. We don't invent English language terms.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 22 August...
Click to read more »discussed as a a term in scholarly literature. It appears to fall under WP:NOTNEO and, even if it weren't a neologism, it would be barred through WP:DICTDEF...
Click to read more »Neologism that has attracted some mainstream sourcing. As an exception to WP:NOTNEO "Merge" would be to "use the term within other articles". I have reservations...
Click to read more »Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC) It is hard to support WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEO, or WP:NTEMP claims that it has a half-life of maybe a week when the meme...
Click to read more »luck. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEO. This was essentially a neologism that never caught on.4meter4 (talk) 06:11...
Click to read more »this are eith not reliable or not independent. E.g. this. Delete per WP:NOTNEO, WP:GNG, and bordering on WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:OR. I note too that this might fall under WP:NOTNEO as well. I also wonder whether the term "Nationalist Conservative" might...
Click to read more »WP:NOTMUISOD WP:NOTMYJOB WP:NOTNAS WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC WP:NOTNDN WP:NOTNEEDED WP:NOTNEO WP:NOTNEUTRAL WP:NOTNEW WP:NOTNLT WP:NOTNOTABLE WP:NOTNOTBUREAU WP:NOTNOTBUREAUCRACY...
Click to read more »Astrophysics Data System yields nothing of substance. In my opinion, the WP:NOTNEO test for neologisms applies here, and in 2023 that test is not passed. As...
Click to read more »Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology...
Click to read more »https://www.techradar.com/opinion/total-experience-a-trend-for-future-business WP:NOTNEO implies at least three sources are needed, and I couldn't find two others...
Click to read more »Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Delete per above, and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Redirect. Could this be...
Click to read more »use-mention distinction, a stated prerequisite in relevant policy like WP:NOTNEO. So it would make sense to delete/merge this one and keep the other one...
Click to read more »than here. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Weak merge or weak keep....
Click to read more »Llll5032 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Adding: The PAGs about neologisms, WP:NOTNEO and MOS:NEO (respectively, within the cautionary "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"...
Click to read more »Based on what you presented, I do not see an indication that this passes WP:NOTNEO: A neologism is a word that is still in the process of becoming accepted...
Click to read more »protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be...
Click to read more »because it is a WP:DICDEF. The other two might be true but run afowl of WP:NOTNEO. Suggest redirecting to Professional degree per WP:PAGEDECIDE/ WP:ATD.4meter4...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unsourced. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »the literature. See use-mention distinction, as required in the policy WP:NOTNEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Keep you can't suggest...
Click to read more »moving these days, this term has already passed the stage cautioned in WP:NOTNEO, while having reached the inclusion criteria: "To support an article about...
Click to read more »WP:NEO. Aneirinn (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO. - Amigao (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Keep per ProgramT. Might...
Click to read more »Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEO. The article is principally built from editorial pages and opinion pieces...
Click to read more »25 September 2023 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and suggest this fails WP:NOTNEO. There is no doubt that Sagan wrote the "extraordinary claims" statement...
Click to read more »