Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decrepitude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Fram (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decrepitude

Decrepitude (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable neoglism? Nonsense? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Either? Both? Does it matter, per WP:DICT? Someone needs edjamacation. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to be trying to be a Devil's WP:DICDEF. Obviously it's a real word and it is not being used as a neologism. This would be like having an article named Crap and starting out, Crap is how many people describe the global economy today..... --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not to mention that the sources do not corroborate the claimed usage. WP:HOAX or joke article at best. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that you are right. Pierre Vanpunstut is a joke name. Vanpunstut is not a real name. And just in case there is any doubt, I live in Vancouver and I've never heard the term used that way. So let's delete this thing before the decrepitude sets in here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a fairly obvious coatrack article pushing a PoV. The word decrepitude is not a neologism, or at least is well-formed. I'd suggest a redirect to obsolescence, which is probably what anyone who linked it or searched it has in mind. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Decrepitude has a well established dicdef as "weakness; infirmity." Too weakly sourced to satisfy WP:N.The title word does not appear in the online portion of the 3 refs. If it is in some non-viewable portion proponents of the article should cite the page number, to show this is verifiable. Edison (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notability whatsoever and per the above statements. Zenlax T C S 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the previous observations. This article does not seem salvageable. AltioraPeto (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (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.