Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autagonist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Made up word. See Wikipedia:Village pump#Can I create my own words ?. RickK 19:03, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • As already noted on Talk:Autagonist, the coiner of the term and author of the article admits it doesn't belong here. I would argue, however, that the word is of sufficient usefulness not to simply be deleted. If Gdr is willing to host it as a subpage of his user account, I hope he will. If not, I will take it in as a subpage of mine. I believe the term may someday prove of use in the world of literary terms, and when that happens, I'd like the page history of that article intact. That's my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You don't need to be an Autagonsit to relize...delete. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Autogonist would be a better spelling anyway. Fredrik | talk 19:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice word. But delete. User can put it in user space if they want. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I really wish this was a real word. Currently neutral. Rhymeless 20:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 21:32, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't see the utility of the term, actually. An authorial stand-in, if it's readily recognizable and bears the name of the author, is, well, an authorial stand-in. (Oh, and I'd argue pretty strongly that Geoffrey Chaucer the character and author are radically different people. The man wouldn't have thought Sir Thopas was good.) Geogre 00:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Author surrogate is a sufficient article on this topic. This is not only a neologism, it's redundant. Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mr. Jones 07:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mr. Thorpe is the founder of an Ultimate team that not only contributes to the Pittsburgh Ultimate community but is also good spirited and outgoing. Any person who has this accomplishment under his belt deserves to be recognized. This is not an example of vanity or vandalism. striking out anon comment that belonged in the prior discussion thread. By the way, my vote is redirect to author surrogate. Rossami 03:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Vandalism, no. Vanity, perhaps. Neologism, without question. No one's questioning anyone's motives or accomplishments. Inclusion in an online encyclopedia - any encyclopedia for that matter - has to pass minimum standards for general notability. A made-up word doesn't ring the bell. - Lucky 6.9 00:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)