Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbisculate

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Orbisculate}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Orbisculate}})

Non-notable topic/WP:NOTDICT. Would consider a wiktionary redirect, but the wiktionary entry was deleted last year as a "Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI" (CFI refers to Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion). (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I declined a speedy on this because (surprisingly enough) a quick Google search revealed multiple press reports, many in reliable sources, about the family's attempts to get this word into dictionaries. I think it's possible that it's notable. There are four pages of hits on Google news search (link in template) and most look credible. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• :If so (and I'd argue WP:NOTNEWS) the topic of the article needs to be "2021 campaign to coin the word orbisculate" rather than the concept itself. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• ::Depended if the campaign is even notable. This looked like an attempt by few people, delete. – The Grid (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• ::Would not object to moving it to refocus on the campaign. This seems like the sort of area that traditional encyclopedias ignore & Wikipedia can be good at; there's a lot of similar material that gets into DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - 1) we're not a dictionary; 2) deliberate WP:NEOlogism. It was rightly deleted from Wiktionary also, which is a dictionary but at least it has standards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (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.