Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicism

:{{la|Felicism}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felicism Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Felicism}})

A neologism with no known use in RS. Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Language must be adaptive by nature or fail to be sufficient to articulate one's thoughts. As vacancies are discovered terms will take their place. Therefore the complaint that 'felicism' is a neologism is fair. However, if it can be agreed that there is a sufficient vacancy in the English language, namely a contrasting term for cynicism, then a term will eventually fill the void. The quickest and easiest way for a word to make the transition from a neologism to an accepted term is with the aid of widely read internet sources e.g. Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyes.carlos (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:I am afraid, Wikipedia is not a platform for a term to 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 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEO, for a word that was coined last week. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.