User:J.J.Sagnella/Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category

This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

After searching through the new pages, one of the biggest pain in the neck are neologisms. Simply enough, if a neologism is hardly used, then why keep it?

I'm going to explain a prime example I have seen again and again which annoys me. This example was from earlier on this year and can be found here and I will be referencing to it during the next paragraph.

This sorry excuse for a word was a word which had less than 20 related Google hits and easily got deleted in Afd. But the problem is during the time it stayed on as an article, people may of seen it, giving this pathetic word publicity. But most annoyingly, it now gets a free billboard to post this useless advertisement to the world using a dead AFD when it doesn't even deserve anything.

Now you may think that was just one example, a rare occurrence perhaps. But when I can find that example and these two within two days, isn't it obvious people are using Wikipedia for billboard space.

My solution is to either make a category for speedy deletion called {{db-neo}} or {{db-neologism}} to quickly and promptly delete neologisms. A Half way agreement is to change Template:Db-nonsense so that neologisms can be added to that category for speedy deletion.

If anyone has any comments on this proposal feel free to say so on the talk page of here. Yours Sincerely, J.J.Sagnella dated 22:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)