Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logodaedaly
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Logodaedaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An extended dictionary definition. Includes a number of quotations, a couple of which are already in the perfectly good Wiktionary entry, and some usage notes, but no indication of significant coverage of the word itself as a subject. Search engine results are largely dictionary definitions and lists of unusual words. Opus 113 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Opus 113 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICT. All of the sources, except for an actual dictionary, are primary usages of the term, not coverage of the term or concept. hinnk (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2025 (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.