Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathmo

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathmo

This is a definition of a slang word. It goes against the specific criteria that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (point 2, reference slang) Mrh30 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:DICDEF -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll note here to bring attention to the fact nobody has signed this delete response. Mathmo ^Talk 06:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops! Sorry, that was me! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The word, in and of itself, has gained enough attention by 3rd party – reliable – verifiable – creditable , as shown here [1] sources to meet the Notability guidelines established by Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the issue is whether it's a word or not, it's the fact that the article is a dictionary definition of it, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Mrh30 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comments below -- simxp (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've read through the top few links that you've supplied to establish notability. All they do is use a slang term in place of the word 'mathematician'. I agree that 'mathematician' is notable for the purposes of an encyclopaedic article, but could you clarify how the links show that 'mathmo' is notable as distinct from the definition 'slang term for mathematician'? Mrh30 (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef, and a slang dicdef at that. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDICDEF point two does not apply here: this is not a "slang and idiom guide", it is an article about one word. WP:NOTDICDEF point one is also not an argument for deletion: it states that "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content" -- i.e. if it's a stub, tag it as such and help expand it, not delete it -- and goes on to explicitly state that "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic". Notability is addressed by User:Shoessss above. -- simxp (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources are given for the history of, or other facts about, this word, as opposed to evidence that it is has actually been used or has a certain meaning. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How does linking to WP:Notability address notability? It doesn't matter whether it's a word, that's irrelevant. Fatigable and grandiose are words, but they don't have articles. —johndburger 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I shouldn't need to explain why.... just look at my username! ;) However on a more serious point, others have already raised why it is not a mere dict dif. (also I'll note I have had very little to do with this page beyond fixing vandalism, and I didn't start it myself. So there is no conflict of interest on that point). Mathmo ^Talk 06:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above 202.89.38.70 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My position on it, as a former Cambridge Mathematician, and hence a genuine 'mathmo', is that it is very much just a slang term that is used within the university (and possibly others). It's in the same league as any number of other slang terms such as 'bop', 'ent', 'p'lodge', 'natsci', 'compsci', 'asnac' and so on. In order to be a valid article, it really needs to show some significance beyond just being a slang word. Otherwise, all the words I've just listed ought to be put in. It might be more appropriate to have a single article called something like 'Cambridge University Slang' with a proper encyclopaedic discussion. Mrh30 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mrh30. Randomblue (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However http://en.wiktionary.org is a dictionary so move it to there.Delaszk (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dictionary definition is a dictionary definition no matter how many people reprint the definition. For an encyclopedia article we need more than a definition and etymology (which are dictionary types of information). --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was previously closed by NonvocalScream, but he reverted his own closure per this DRV. Rationale available in history. lifebaka++ 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a term it violates WP:NEO and WP:NOT there is also no establishment of notability. Name drops are trivial coverage. The link above to google news is nothing more than half a dozen name drops of the term. The only source which gives it any coverage is a university/college level news paper which does not confer notability. If some reliable sources start writing articles about the term Mathmo, then feel free to recreate the article. As it stands its a term that is barely used in mainstream language and is barely on the radar. We're not a compendium of all human knowledge and that we're not a place for things you made up at school one day (which the policy may still say, if not its rather appropriate here).--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability established, sources are only trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say move to Wiktionary, normally, but there's absolutely no real notability established, nothing that can be substantially used towards this end can be found on Google or Gnews, and, of course, it violates WP:NOT. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — First, not notable to identify the subject as an article; References are not verifiable and it reads more like a dictionary definition. Macy 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definitions. Tavix (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.