Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabate

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) 00:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anabate

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

Prod tag removed. Not speediable. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be. Neologisms are completely NN and fall under the same criteria as NN bios, band vanity, etc. IMO, that is. Still going to vote speedy delete. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they should be, but unfortunately I think they are explicitly stated as not. Correct? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the exact rule, but I'm not against letting this run its course. I'll investigate the rules a bit deeper when I have some more time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This what I'm going by WP:NOTCSD. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, which says that a neologism may be fit for inclusion if it "has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, and a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept." That is certainly not the case here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO. — æk ^Talk 04:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO, and probably WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC Defender of torch (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO, etc., as a legion of editors have pointed out. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:29, 11 January 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.