Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worryment

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Worryment]]=

:{{la|Worryment}} ([{{fullurl:Worryment|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worryment}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, delete and send content to Wiktionary. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited article to better reflect the true purpouse - the possibility of non-existent words passing into existence whilst citing the origins of this argument, that is, the word worryment. JonMoore87 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is now a piece of original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable neologism -- Worryment is a word which currently does not appear in the English dictionary but was used in a podcast published by PCPro on Thursday 2nd July 2009, this podcast was recorded on July 1st 2009. -- to which musings on lexicalization and word formation have been added. Like the redundant neologism itself, any substantive content could be handled at worry.

    I wondered about whether this is even established enough for Wiktionary, but it would appear to be so. It is an entirely regular formation. [http://www.google.com/search?q=worryment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Google search] yields plenty of examples from before 2009, including one use by a [http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ewyatt/_borders/Texas%20Slave%20Narratives/Texas%20H/Hooper,%20Scott.html person born in 1856]. So the current content is also inaccurate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Might be notable if updated and put on Wiktionary but it doesn't seem to belong here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiktionary is that way... LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This word is not a neologism, it [http://books.google.com/books?id=XiLNRhelMywC&pg=PA99&dq=worryment appeared in print in 1963] and possibly earlier. The more common spelling "worriment" [http://books.google.com/books?id=bmY0AAAAIAAJ&q=worriment&dq=worriment&lr= appeared in 1897] and is included in my 1998 edition of The Chambers Dictionary. Wiktionary already has entries at both spellings - wikt:worriment, wikt:worryment, so there is no point in transwiking any of this waffle. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP is not a dictionary. Iowateen (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, but note: Contrary to several suggestions above, the article is not (only) a dictionary definition. It is, however, original research not supported by any reliable, third-party sources. It therefore does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.