Misplaced Pages

:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IV (Dicdefs): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Proposal to expand WP:CSD Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:09, 8 January 2005 editGuanaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,306 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:22, 31 July 2023 edit undoBruce1ee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers267,250 editsm fixed lint errors – stripped tags 
(60 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
=== Votes === === Votes ===
==== Agree ==== ==== Agree ====
#] 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#]] 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #]] 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Line 23: Line 23:
#] | ] 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
# ] 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) # ] 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] | ] 17:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 17:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]] 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #]] 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#] 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #] ] 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] ] 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# ] 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) # ]&mdash; ] | ] 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#&#8212;]]] 06:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #&mdash;]]] 06:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 11:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 11:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #] ] 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Line 37: Line 37:
#] 21:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Weak support based on strict narrow interpretation) #] 21:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Weak support based on strict narrow interpretation)
# ] ] 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (If some future editor wants to write a real article, the definition can be easily copied back. A redlink is more likely to draw in new contributions.) # ] ] 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (If some future editor wants to write a real article, the definition can be easily copied back. A redlink is more likely to draw in new contributions.)
⚫ #] 23:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] | ] 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] | ] 19:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 19:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Line 49: Line 48:
#] 15:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 15:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 16:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 22:14, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
#] 16:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
#Wording could be improved. Nevertheless if they already exist at Wiktionary or are actual neologisms they shouldn't be hanging around wasting time on the Vfd. ]]]]] 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 20:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
#] 07:36, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
#] 20:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


==== Disagree ==== ==== Disagree ====
#] 15:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) - I'd suggest a request for expansion or merge, not a speedy deletion; at most VfD.
#] 02:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) I would vote yes for Neologisms only #] 02:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) I would vote yes for Neologisms only
#] 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Line 64: Line 73:
#Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--] 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--] 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#] 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]<span class="venus">]</span> 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
⚫ #{{User:Eequor/Signature/Syllabic}} 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #] ] 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#] (]) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #] (]) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#] 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] | ] 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Agree with Netoholic on this one.] 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #Agree with Netoholic on this one.] 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] (]) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #] (]) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Line 75: Line 84:
#Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --] 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) #Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --] 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
#This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. ]~] 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. ]~] 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. ] | ] 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. ] | ] 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#I hate this: proposals which are actually multiple proposals mixed into one. I would say yes to the dictdefs, but neologisms listed on VfD often turn out not to be neologisms at all. ] <nowiki>]|]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #I hate this: proposals which are actually multiple proposals mixed into one. I would say yes to the dictdefs, but neologisms listed on VfD often turn out not to be neologisms at all. ] <nowiki>]|]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Line 86: Line 95:
#Neologisms are a little too "If I haven't heard of it..." error worthy. Odd that Mononoke's vote text is the same as Zain's. ]/] 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) #Neologisms are a little too "If I haven't heard of it..." error worthy. Odd that Mononoke's vote text is the same as Zain's. ]/] 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #] 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#]|] 03:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): The neologisms part made me put my vote here. If it was just "Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary", then I probably would have agreed. #]|] 03:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): The neologisms part made me put my vote here. If it was just "Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary", then I probably would have agreed.
#] 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]</font> | ] 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#Often dic-defs can be turned in proper articles. And unfortunately, it's impossible to decide what's a neologism on your own. This should be handled on a case by case basis. ]|] 11:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #Often dic-defs can be turned in proper articles. And unfortunately, it's impossible to decide what's a neologism on your own. This should be handled on a case by case basis. ]|] 11:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#] 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #] 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#] 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#&ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) #&ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Line 100: Line 109:
# since most neologisms are completely non-notable they are already covered while dicdefs have potential to grow ] 08:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) # since most neologisms are completely non-notable they are already covered while dicdefs have potential to grow ] 08:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Dictionary definitions can and do grow. If some articles appears that for some reason cannot be expanded, take it to VfD. ] 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) # Dictionary definitions can and do grow. If some articles appears that for some reason cannot be expanded, take it to VfD. ] 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Agree with Arj. ]] 18:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) # Agree with Arj. ]] 18:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 21:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 21:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Could turn into a good article ] 21:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) #Could turn into a good article ] 21:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Line 106: Line 115:
# Legitimate articles will inevitably be lost if a single admin can make a subjective decision on appropriateness. ] 04:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) # Legitimate articles will inevitably be lost if a single admin can make a subjective decision on appropriateness. ] 04:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] ] 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Once again, the objections raised here must be dealt with. (Although I doubt that they can be.) ] ] 05:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) #Once again, the objections raised here must be dealt with. (Although I doubt that they can be.) ] ] 05:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
#Dicdefs often provide a reasonable basis for an improved article. If they don't grow, there's VfD. ] 12:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) #Dicdefs often provide a reasonable basis for an improved article. If they don't grow, there's VfD. ] 12:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# There's no sense in speedying a dicdef, most can be expanded on greatly. As Warofdreams said, if they don't improve, they can be VfD'ed. What would you prefer, an entry on Dishwashers stating that A dishwasher is an appliance for the washing of dishes using detergent and water, or no entry at all? They can eventually go somewhere. ]] 12:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) # There's no sense in speedying a dicdef, most can be expanded on greatly. As Warofdreams said, if they don't improve, they can be VfD'ed. What would you prefer, an entry on Dishwashers stating that A dishwasher is an appliance for the washing of dishes using detergent and water, or no entry at all? They can eventually go somewhere. ]] 12:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). Substubs ought not to be deleted on sight. #] 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). Substubs ought not to be deleted on sight.
#] | ] 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] | ] 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Dictionary definitions are often the basis for more developed articles. ] started as a , but has since expanded significantly. ] 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) #Dictionary definitions are often the basis for more developed articles. ] started as a , but has since expanded significantly. ] 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
#] 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Many worthwhile articles start life with very little content. Delete only if the ''topic'' is inappropriate. If you don't like the content, then fix it! ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #Many worthwhile articles start life with very little content. Delete only if the ''topic'' is inappropriate. If you don't like the content, then fix it! ]\] 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#If there is a way to expand the topic, then expand it (isn't that what the whole point of a wiki is?). A start might just be to add links to the words in the definition. Only if the topic has no hope for expansion should it be deleted, and the VfD is adequate for that imho. ] 10:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #If there is a way to expand the topic, then expand it (isn't that what the whole point of a wiki is?). A start might just be to add links to the words in the definition. Only if the topic has no hope for expansion should it be deleted, and the VfD is adequate for that imho. ] 10:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]] 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no. #]] 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no.
#] 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Needs a longer timespan than speedy deletion to determine whether it's article-worthy or not. ] 20:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
⚫ #] 02:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# ] 04:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# --] 10:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] ] 15:47, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Perhaps VfD, but not for speedy.
# ] 21:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
# No, because some of these "neologisms and made-up words" have merit. I would vote "yes" for the first part of this proposal if the content in the page, if different from the Wiktionary definition, is merged with it. ] 23:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Many of these articles are expandable. -- ]] ] 01:16, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)]
# VfD discussion candidate, yes, but not a speedy. ] 06:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 07:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
#] 09:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# ] 10:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) This is not a judgement which any single user can reliably make.
#] ] 13:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#'''NO'''. "Dictionary definition" ''per se'' shouldn't even grounds for deletion IMO; this sweeps up stubs whose sin is that they begin at the beginning. Many articles that could be expanded will be speedily deleted. -- ] 19:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# No. Dicdefs should be allowed the possibility to expand into reasonable articles. ] ] 00:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# Disagree. In the Vfd process, I have seen what one person has considered to be nothing more than a Dictdef article expanded into a good article. Best left to the judgement of the community. ] 00:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
## The above vote was from me. ] 00:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 04:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Just because of the neologism part.
#Plenty of good articles have started off this way ] 12:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# ] ] 19:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
# ] 20:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) Too vague, too subjective. This is exactly what VfD is for.
#] 02:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 06:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't think any one person can have a clear idea of the importance of all neologisms.
#] &mdash; ] | ] 18:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC). Dictdefs have the potential of growing into good articles.
⚫ #] <s>23:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)</s>
#:Changed vote from Agree. I've seen some VfD dicdefs expanded to become decent articles''because'' they were listed on VfD. Also, neologisms should require a VfD to determine them as such. --]] 21:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] Many dicdefs can be expanded. I've seen it. 05:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#VfD can take care of this, and often has spurred expansion into decent articles. ] 07:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 23:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Agree with Edeans. --] 02:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#Agree with Deathphoenix -- ] 02:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 11:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] I don't see the harm, they can grow to be more very easily.
#(Would vote yes to neologisms only.) ] 23:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:22, 31 July 2023

Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Misplaced Pages:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary, or is not appropriate for submission there (i.e. made-up words, neologisms).

Votes

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vamp:Willow 01:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Carnildo 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Antaeus Feldspar 02:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ben Brockert 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Jeff Knaggs 08:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Dori | Talk 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. P Ingerson 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. RickK 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Anthony Liekens 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. ℘yrop (talk) 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  20. gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. —Charles P.  06:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Gentgeen 11:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Alphax (talk) 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Tompagenet 13:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Keith D. Tyler 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Infrogmation 21:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Weak support based on strict narrow interpretation)
  29. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (If some future editor wants to write a real article, the definition can be easily copied back. A redlink is more likely to draw in new contributions.)
  30. SWAdair | Talk 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Yes--Plato 22:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. -- uriber 22:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. PaulHammond 02:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Mikkalai 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. ] 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) for obvious neologisms and made-up words, plus for stuff that's already at Wiktionary. (And I mean obvious words like stuff you can't find anywhere online except some kid's blog)
  37. Belgian man 12:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) (doubtful)
  38. andy 15:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Norg 15:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. AlexTiefling 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. Curps 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. Martg76 16:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. CryptoDerk 22:14, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Rmhermen 16:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Wording could be improved. Nevertheless if they already exist at Wiktionary or are actual neologisms they shouldn't be hanging around wasting time on the Vfd. ] 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. Goldom 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. Katefan0 20:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  48. R. S. Shaw 07:36, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  49. RedWolf 20:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Pablo D. Flores 15:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) - I'd suggest a request for expansion or merge, not a speedy deletion; at most VfD.
  2. ike9898 02:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) I would vote yes for Neologisms only
  3. Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Terrible wording, as many such articles can be turned into full articles, redirects, or disambigs. Neologisms are often retained after a VFD vote. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. Smoddy | Talk 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ld | talk 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. max rspct 00.18 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Xtra 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neologisms are hard to decide even by VfD. Wikimol 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Many pages marked with the {{wi}} tag are now good articles. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  13. Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--Sketchee 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Rje 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Sc147 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Ливай | ☺ 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Agree with Netoholic on this one.Dr Zen 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Korath (Talk) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Antandrus 06:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too draconian; often these can be made into decent articles.
  24. Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. iMeowbot~Mw 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Rafał Pocztarski 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. Thue | talk 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. I hate this: proposals which are actually multiple proposals mixed into one. I would say yes to the dictdefs, but neologisms listed on VfD often turn out not to be neologisms at all. David Johnson 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  30. wheresmysocks 17:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. We have loads of articles consisting only of a dictionary definition, already present on Wiktionary and which have full potential to become articles. Phils 18:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Can be the start of a good article. Dan100 19:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  33. virtually every definition is extendable. Zain 22:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. virtually every definition is extendable. Mononoke
  35. Neologisms are a little too "If I haven't heard of it..." error worthy. Odd that Mononoke's vote text is the same as Zain's. hfool/Wazzup? 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. BSveen 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Frazzydee|✍ 03:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): The neologisms part made me put my vote here. If it was just "Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary", then I probably would have agreed.
  38. jni 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Ryan! | Talk 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Often dic-defs can be turned in proper articles. And unfortunately, it's impossible to decide what's a neologism on your own. This should be handled on a case by case basis. Mgm| 11:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Xezbeth 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Naive cynic 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. – Quadell 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Mailer Diablo 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  46. David Iberri | Talk 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Francs2000 | Talk ] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case
  48. Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Dict-def or stub is sometimes a fine line. Neologisms often survive vfd anyway.
  49. since most neologisms are completely non-notable they are already covered while dicdefs have potential to grow ping 08:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Dictionary definitions can and do grow. If some articles appears that for some reason cannot be expanded, take it to VfD. arj 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  51. Agree with Arj. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Dbiv 21:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Could turn into a good article Lee S. Svoboda 21:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. Hapsiainen 01:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  55. Legitimate articles will inevitably be lost if a single admin can make a subjective decision on appropriateness. Wyss 04:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  57. Once again, the objections raised here must be dealt with. (Although I doubt that they can be.) →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  58. Dicdefs often provide a reasonable basis for an improved article. If they don't grow, there's VfD. Warofdreams 12:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. There's no sense in speedying a dicdef, most can be expanded on greatly. As Warofdreams said, if they don't improve, they can be VfD'ed. What would you prefer, an entry on Dishwashers stating that A dishwasher is an appliance for the washing of dishes using detergent and water, or no entry at all? They can eventually go somewhere. 12:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. SocratesJedi 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). Substubs ought not to be deleted on sight.
  61. Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Dictionary definitions are often the basis for more developed articles. Yōkai started as a mere definition, but has since expanded significantly. Josh 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Henrygb 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  64. Many worthwhile articles start life with very little content. Delete only if the topic is inappropriate. If you don't like the content, then fix it! GeorgeStepanek\ 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. If there is a way to expand the topic, then expand it (isn't that what the whole point of a wiki is?). A start might just be to add links to the words in the definition. Only if the topic has no hope for expansion should it be deleted, and the VfD is adequate for that imho. Thryduulf 10:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Superm401 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  67. Guanaco 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no.
  68. Dejvid 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. Needs a longer timespan than speedy deletion to determine whether it's article-worthy or not. Ranveig 20:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. FLafaire 02:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. Secretcurse 04:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  72. --JuntungWu 10:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  73. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:47, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Perhaps VfD, but not for speedy.
  74. RedWordSmith 21:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  75. No, because some of these "neologisms and made-up words" have merit. I would vote "yes" for the first part of this proposal if the content in the page, if different from the Wiktionary definition, is merged with it. Andrew pmk 23:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Many of these articles are expandable. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:16, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)]
  77. VfD discussion candidate, yes, but not a speedy. 23skidoo 06:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Indrian 07:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  79. Markaci 09:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Visviva 10:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) This is not a judgement which any single user can reliably make.
  81. Trilobite (Talk) 13:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  82. NO. "Dictionary definition" per se shouldn't even grounds for deletion IMO; this sweeps up stubs whose sin is that they begin at the beginning. Many articles that could be expanded will be speedily deleted. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  83. No. Dicdefs should be allowed the possibility to expand into reasonable articles. Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  84. Disagree. In the Vfd process, I have seen what one person has considered to be nothing more than a Dictdef article expanded into a good article. Best left to the judgement of the community. 165.228.129.11 00:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    1. The above vote was from me. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  85. JoaoRicardo 04:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Just because of the neologism part.
  86. Plenty of good articles have started off this way 129.177.61.124 12:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  87. Oldak Quill 19:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  88. Starblind 20:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) Too vague, too subjective. This is exactly what VfD is for.
  89. bbx 02:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  90. Philip 06:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't think any one person can have a clear idea of the importance of all neologisms.
  91. — Asbestos | Talk 18:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC). Dictdefs have the potential of growing into good articles.
  92. Deathphoenix 23:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Changed vote from Agree. I've seen some VfD dicdefs expanded to become decent articlesbecause they were listed on VfD. Also, neologisms should require a VfD to determine them as such. --Deathphoenix 21:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  93. Eric119 Many dicdefs can be expanded. I've seen it. 05:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  94. VfD can take care of this, and often has spurred expansion into decent articles. Edeans 07:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  95. Enochlau 23:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  96. Agree with Edeans. --Idont Havaname 02:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  97. Agree with Deathphoenix -- UTSRelativity 02:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  98. John 11:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  99. KellyCoinGuy I don't see the harm, they can grow to be more very easily.
  100. (Would vote yes to neologisms only.) Rich Farmbrough 23:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)