Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penguinize

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Penguinize

• Doesn't look like a good article. Has several external links and no Wikipedia links, and appears to start with a dic-def. Georgia guy 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think this one should probably be merged and redirected, not sure where yet though. JYolkowski // talk 02:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wrote the article, and showed it to one of my friends who then vandalized it. He isn't my friend anymore. I've been working on more examples, etc. I believe that it is worth the 2-3KB it takes up. I wrote the "dic-def" that Georgia Guy was wiki-ing about, and I thought that it explained the basic idea of "penguinizing" something. The Vandals Name is Kyle and can be reached at spetznas67 (aim) and kyle@xugle.com (hoasted on my domain... I'll be deleting his email in 2 weeks so get your rants in now). I beleive that with a little chance to gorw, the penguinizing article could have potential. I only had it up for about 10 minutes before it was vandalized. plz let it stay for the time being! (thx) JimXugle 03:02GMT, 26 APR 2005
  • Update: I have added more infromation to the article as of 03:17GMT 26 APR 2005; Please revisit the penguinize article. — (JimXugle forgot to sign.)
• Delete. Neologism. 41 unique Google hits for penguinize. android↔talk 03:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. What's the policy for re-creating deleted articles? If this gets big (which, in all fairness to JimXugle, it absolutely might), then, sure, let's have an article for it (or at least a wicidic entry). Right now, though... Marblespire 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary iff Linux users (I'm not one) can verify that this term is a genuine slang term among them. Otherwise delete as a neologism. --Angr/_comhrá 10:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Marblespire. JimXugle, try urbandictionary.com - they let you make up words and try to get them into the vernacular. Johntex 17:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to refute what Johntex said. I know many people, not just my close-knit friends, who use the word "penguinize" in normal conversation. These people range (Geographically) from Birtish Columbia, Canada, to Virginia, USA. It may be a "made up word", but thats how a language Evloves. the word "digital" was unheard of in the early 1900's, but is now commonplace. I don't claim that the word "penguinize" will become as popular is digital, nor do I claim to have "made up" the word. JimXugle 20:26GMT, 26 APR 2005
  • That's all well and good, but the word is still a neologism. android↔talk 20:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whats wrong with a recently created (or coined) word/phrase? Like I said before... It's how a language evolves.
    • Perhaps the fact that Wikipedia has an explicit policy against including neologisms? I quote: A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is: [...] it introduces neologisms. (Note that, above, I linked this policy page from neologism; I should have made that more obvious, perhaps.) android↔talk 20:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Please sign your comments by putting a ~~~~ at the end.) In Wikipedialand, "neologism" means "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." (See WP:GVFD.) In the ordinary sense of the word, sure, there are lots of articles whose names are neologisms. But those articles are about the concept behind the word, not the word itself. If you want to write about the definition and origin of a word, you need to contribute to contribute to our sister project, Wiktionary ---Isaac R 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 22:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Aight. I give Up. If it's against Wikipolicy, get rid of it. My Vote: Delete -JimXugle 02:09GMT 27 APR 2005
  • Change in vote: After reading Tony Sidaway's post, Merge and redirect to Linux -JimXugle 20:26GMT 27 APR 2005
• Merge and redirect to Linux. Penguinizing wouldn't apply to BSD, that would be Daemonizing! :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway; hence the idea behind wiki! edit it (while it's still up)! :-P -JimXugle 20:23GMT 27 APR 2005
• Keep it. At what point does the term become legit enough? A quick Google found an article from year 2000 in PCWorld that uses the term - albeit they seem to have a different understanding of the term -- newbie lurker 47.234.0.52 18:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Retain User:SteveBaker I'm a Linux user - and I've definitely heard this term used in the way it's defined on this page. I wouldn't say it was wildly popular - but it's definitely not something this guy just dreamed up. As such, I think it should stay. (I like 'Defenestrating' as an almost-synonym!)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.