Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igry
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. Joyous 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Igry[edit]
Neologism. The article claims it is such, and even says who invented it (perhaps the article's creator?). Lots of google hits, but those that aren't pages for neologisms seem to be foreign language sites, where "igry" is, I guess, a real word. This neologism seems like it might be more likely to catch on than most, but until it does we're not here to promote it. I don't know what Wiktionary does about neologisms, but it belongs more with them than with us. -R. fiend 17:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as self-admitted neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into gry without Redirect. If use of the word were to become widespread, igry would still be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia entry. Moreover, as per Wikipedia naming conventions, any encyclopedia article on the subject would have to be iger, not igry. Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to gry. Merge without redirect gives needless GFDL problems, and is not generally a valid vote for this reason, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion. But in any case I found this interesting, if a bit obscure. Content should be kept, which means we must keep the history somehow, and the redir seems a useful one to me anyway. Andrewa 20:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning the original article in the merging edit summary will solve those problems. GFDL only requires the person to be credited. Mgm|(talk) 23:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The practice up until now has been to copy (by cut and paste) the edit history of the original article into the talk page of the target. Personally I'm a bit dubious that even this is sufficient. How does the mere mention of a deleted article credit the author(s)? Andrewa 08:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning the original article in the merging edit summary will solve those problems. GFDL only requires the person to be credited. Mgm|(talk) 23:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no merge, no redirect, no wiktionary. Article appears to have been created to promote this neologism. Kappa 00:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, watching someone attempt to use Wikipedia to promote neologisms makes me feel igry. Google hits seem to mostly be from January 2004, a year ago. It didn't catch on. -- Curps 01:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity neologism. Wyss 10:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Not in significant real use. When it is in the dictionary, I will accept that the word actually has been introduced into the language, and at that point it will merit an article. That -gry riddle was stupid to begin with, and enjoyed an irritating burst of popularity a few years ago, but I think it has died down now. Yep, only three hits for "gry" in rec.puzzles in the year 2004, compared with 303 in 1996. So there's no real need for this neologism any more, and it is very unlikely to get any traction. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A neologism and a dicdef. Bart133 03:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.