- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lusophilia[edit]
- Lusophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The article simply defines the word and gives its etymology like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. It then makes an uncited claim about the "obvious" source of lusophilia, the obviousness hinting at WP:OR. A google search reveals the existence of the word but little else to say about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not only does the page read like a dictionary, but there are no reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dictionary definition of a random neologism. I could sit around and come up with a few more like this if you gave me a Latin or Greek dictionary. Lusophobia seems like it may have issues with notability, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced dictionary definition. A search shows the word is used but there is no significant coverage with which to create an encyclopedic article. Already at Wiktionary. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2016 (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.