Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiotism

Idiotism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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

Idiotism

No potential for this to become encyclopedic, just a dictionary def. Should either be deleted or a redirect to idiot. Zachlipton 21:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Just delete. -Cdc 22:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• My understanding is that idiotisms are linguistic usages that are idiosyncratic to an individual, a family, or a small social circle, so circumscribed that they have not entered a general vocabulary. What's here would be no help to write an article on them, though. Delete. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • According to dictionary.com it can be either, but in its present state the entry should just be deleted unless someone is going to rewrite the whole thing now. Zachlipton 23:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I thought those were idiolectisms (as opposed to ideolectisms). At any rate, this is a dictdef. Geogre 03:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --MPerel 19:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

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