Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landphoon

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. CitiCat ♫ 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landphoon

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

This is an article on a neologism that essentially asserts its own non-notability: it is an "unofficial term" not used in any official warnings or advisories. It's essentially a slang or colloquial term with no formal definition (see the talk page). The references given do mention the term, but only just, and they do not define it in any way. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as most of the article is just an attempt to define the term, and the article arose directly from a dispute over a vandalistic edit to Tropical Storm Erin (2007) that wasn't quite resolved. Coredesat 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Article admits this is not used anywhere as an official term. Lurker (said · done) 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism that isn't used seriously by any authority. --Golbez 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent verification spontaneously forms out of the blue in the next few days. The article history and the diff provided do seem to confirm Coredesat's assertion that this article was created simply to prove a WP:POINT. The term is not 100% made up, hence the couple of references, but is apparently not notable outside of Australian meteorological circles. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There's sources that contain the term, so I say transwiki to Wiktionary. If they don't want it, they can deal with that there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In a way, I was trying to prove a point with this article, because the term is mentioned in a refereed article. The Erin debate did lead to the search for references in literature, and a few were found. The term is not made up at all on my end...I didn't coin it. If there was no government or university web sites with published papers containing the term, I wouldn't have added the article. But there were. I will accept the deletion if it is the overwhelming view (it does constitute a neologism), but the article will need to be revived if the term shows up in a dictionary at some point. There are many meteorological terms that are defined and not used in official warnings or forecasts, so I don't think that part of the reasoning can be used for deletion. Thegreatdr 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with reviving the term if it shows up in official literature at some point; this doesn't preclude future inclusions. --Golbez 14:05, 10 September 2007 (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.