Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neologism (disambiguation)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambiguation page that has no articles with ambiguous titles other than the main page -- there is nothing to disambiguate. The content was removed from Neologism by User:Wolfkeeper [1] with the edit summary Other uses: removed 'other uses' articles are not disamb pages. The only one of the linked articles that even mentions "neologism" is Aphasia, and in that context the intended reference is to neologism, not to some other sense. Unless there are other articles with titles that are ambiguous with "neologism", the disambiguation page is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proposed deletion should also have held; disambiguation pages fit under the prod guidelines. But since another editor removed the prod, !voting delete per nomination: no ambiguous articles to disambiguate. "Other uses" should be fine in article-space texts, and the information, if needed, can be restored to Neologism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambig page, and replace the 3 referenced "other uses" in the neologism article, per standard merging practice ("significant overlap with the topic of another page") Related and Derived meanings are not the same thing as ambiguous titles (though sometimes they overlap), per WP:DABNOT and MOS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOTDICT. Tenuous in the extreme. Rodhull andemu 01:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disambiguation page with nothing to disambiguate -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a dictionary entry masquerading as a disambiguation page. Dew Kane (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this silly dictionary entry. Hans Adler 07:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a DAB, not particularly useful. I understand Wolfkeeper's frustration with pre-split content of Neologism. It conflated the concept of neologism discussed in that article (and in studies of autism and aphasia) with different concepts under the same name in theology and psychiatry. This split is not the correct solution, however. Cnilep (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to save the material which seemed to be distinct, it could have been turned into a proper disamb page, but I don't particularly care one way or another about it.- Wolfkeeper 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.