Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riggensob

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott e^iπ 09:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Riggensob

Quote from page: "This word is used almost exclusively by a group of six people". A word only used by six people is not encyclopedic. JeremyA 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, extreme neologism. DaveTheRed 03:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The reference to 6 people is to at the time of the word's creation and has increased drastically since then. Furtheremore, the word is NOT neologism as it has existed for an extended period of time. In addition, this directly conflicts with general rules prohibiting the "biting of newcomers", "Wikiquette", and civility regulations. —This comment by 24.238.51.35
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologilatistical to TEH XTREEM. Alphax ^τεχ 04:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • And I am being attacked for being "neologilatistical to TEH XTREEM."? obviously an uncivilized comment and presents no complaint that I have not explained and made null and void. —This comment by 24.238.51.35
• Do Not Delete How can it be neologism if it has been used over the duration of years? And to call such a creative entity so is overrated and shows you aren't used to accepting things different from the norm. —This comment by 24.238.39.115

You appear to have voted twice. -- Dan -- 04:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence has been supplied for the "drastic" increase of usage of this word beyond the original six people, and little information is given on the meaning and usage of the word. -- Dan -- 04:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, egregious vanity, neologism. See also Twotch and The Membrane, also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 04:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is troll an acceptable reason? If not, not notable, neologism, and vanity will have to suffice. android↔talk 04:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blame "no original research", as well. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Even if it's a valid word, it should be on Wiktionary, not here. Delete or transwiki in case it's referenced. And please don't feel attacked anonymous user. It's all about the article, not you personally. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've certainly learned that new words in the modern-day world are unwelcomed in this site, and also that users of this website are vicious and attack without provocation. Thanks for letting me in on such a well kept secret, as I wouldn't have figured this out if I didn't try to expand this site and wasn't recklessly attacked as a result.In response to "And please don't feel attacked anonymous user. It's all about the article, not you personally.", I do feel attacked. That's not changing anytime soon.

Unsigned comment by 24.238.51.35 (talk · contributions)

Whether you believe it or not, it's nothing personal; I don't think anybody here knows you at all, so why should they have a personal grudge against you? It's simply not the function of this site to introduce or popularize new words or concepts; it's an online encyclopedia, intended to describe things that already exist and have sufficient popularity or notability to merit inclusion. -- Dan -- 16:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Korath. To the creator of the page, I'm sorry you feel attacked. I'd respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not really the right place for somebody who is going to consider reasoned disagreement with his views to be a personal attack. However, it very much is the place for a smart and creative person, which you seem to be. So if you can get used to the idea that people will offer polite but pointed criticism of your contributions, and if you are willing to take the time to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is supposed to be, you'd certainly be welcome. If you think people here are being unfair to you, the best way to prove them wrong is to create a great article on a topic that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Best, Jacobw 16:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calling this article "vanity", "not notable", and the blatantly overused "neologism" is not polite but pointed criticism. This is intentional and flagrant insult of myself and my article. Any attempt to explain the behavior of these "administrators" is easily repelled for there is no excuse for such action.

Unsigned comment by 24.238.51.35 (talk · contributions)

People here are not trying to make personal attacks on you; they're just describing your articles in terms of their suitability for Wikipedia in accordance with its policies and principles. Being nice to a "newbie" doesn't require that everybody always agree with your views on everything, or that they should have to "sugarcoat" their criticisms so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. -- Dan -- 16:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Words like vanity, non-notable and others are in fact voting shorthands, and might not mean what you think they mean. Take a look at the Guide to Votes for deletion. --cesarb 17:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Err, we're not all administrators. I'm not. Anybody can participate in a VfD discussion, though comments from anonymous and very new users don't typically carry much weight. android↔talk 17:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:24.238.51.35. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 19:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Articles about words belong in Wiktionary. However, an article about this purported word does not, because it does not meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that this word exists at all. Articles about the people/places/concepts/things denoted by the words belong in Wikipedia. However, as this article itself states, this purported word doesn't actually denote anything. Delete. Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't have dicdefs and neither neologisms. --Neigel von Teighen 18:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, vanity neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable neologism. Binadot 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism / website ad Fawcett5 01:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.