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. There just isn't any convincing proof offered that it wasn't made up the same day as the article appeared, or that it's actually in use at any significant level. If it becomes popular and proof to that effect is offered, the article can be recreated, although it might be just a DicDef. Herostratus 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfing[edit]

Wilfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

All Google searches [1] result in articles that were only created today. I strongly believe that this is a term coined by a journalist, pretending that it already exists. Please not that the creator of the article has contributed to a lot of journalism related articles, suggesting that he may be the creator of the word. Nphase 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wilfing is becoming a big topic. This has been in the air for several years, most people are subjected to wilfing from time to time, and the Internet does not held what it promises. I am for expansion and against deletion of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.56.100 (talk • contribs)

Please back this up by showing us a Web or print citation of "wilfing" that is older than today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.44.241 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. The concept is understandable and graspable (simple case of being distracted), but the term is very much a neologism, and possibly more a sniglet than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Don't delete"". Hello, I am the creator of this thread - I assure you I'm not a journalist coining the word, as far as my memory goes my only contribution to a journalism page is changing a political stance of one newspaper (also, one of the edits on the page) apparently is for bad grammar, another clue I'm not a journalist). I would like this page to stay as I really think this word could get into more general use (even without this page) and so it is good to have it documented from it's early usage, and have this page expanded. I have heard the phrase before today but really learnt more about it this morning. I've heard it used several times today by ordinary people (ie. not on any meda) and I have a feeling it's not going to go away. Thank you. Also you may have guessed I'm new to this whole process so forgive all my edits to this, I've tried to make it look like other people's submissions on here :)User talk:anightowl 11 April 2007 01:48 GMT
  • You might want to check for notability of the term, verifiability of the notability, and naturally, some reliable sources will help. Also, for this, see WP:DICT. Suffice it to say, we're unfortunately not a repository for new concepts or terms (yep, see that one too). I admire your enthusiasm, if anything. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and come to find out that WP:DICT doesn't actually go anywhere. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know where you heard or read the phrase before today? If your friend said it because he'd just read the article, that's no good; if it was used without self-consciousness in a decent source that wasn't *about* the word, that would be interesting. As for "having a feeling" it won't go away, clearly those who voted in the opposite direction have the opposite feeling; as creator of the article, you should be trying to demonstrate its worth with objective facts! 81.155.44.241 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - term was apparently coined very recently. No other notability or verifiability. Probably falls into the realm of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. JRHorse 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, probably not NFT, just assume WP:NEO here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can't be sure if my friend had seen the article or not, for obvious reasons. I have heard it before today, though I can't vouch for precisely where speaker got it from. this article (http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/115508.html) claims it was coined by a money website. I understand if this article has to be deleted but obviously in these cases its hard to present objective facts - we still haven't got the precise origin of the word "gay" from when it began to mean homosexual. (and I'm not suggesting this "wilfing" is already in that common circulation!)User:Anightowl
• Weak keep under the assumption that the use continues.DGG 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wikictionary. This is just a dic-def. meshach 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and probably not even transwiki; yet another dicdef for a neologism nobody ever uses. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Don't DeleteIt seems to fit a particular set of practices of aimlessly killing time, idly searching, relaxing, even being on automatic pilot - whatever. I like the term - anything to clarify the ambiguity inherent in surfing and searching etc., anyway what other term can be used to fit those sets of practices? anthrobfd — Preceding unsigned comment added by anthrobfd (talk • contribs)

And you think Wikipedia should contain things that you think "seem" to fit? Great. Nphase 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we're still not a dictionary, anthrobfd. Check my comments to User:anightowl above for further guidance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI would keep this for now and maybe review it in a few months. Chronic The Wedgehog 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very convincing argument. Reasons? Nphase 06:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that as this is getting a lot of attention at present, we should let it ride but then review it over time to see if the word sticksChronic The Wedgehog 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains: we are not a dictionary. Urban Dictionary is a start, beyond that, maybe Wiktionary, but here... it doesn't work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about explaining what a new word means, it is about the relatively new social phenomena of people aimlessly wasting time on the internets - especially here ;-) Chronic The Wedgehog 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the world of the internet, believe me, this isn't new. It's just been granted a name arbitrarily. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I needed to know what it is, and here I found it. That's just good enough for an article to be kept. No good for Wictionary, as there is not sufficient space for explanations etc. I'd follow "Chronic The Wedgehog" -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, it's not a good enough reason for it to be kept. A good enough reason for it to be kept is if there were enoughh reliable sources to show that it was a notable term, and that said notability was verifiable. This is little more than a dictionary definition, and an encyclopedia is no place for dictionary definitions. Note also that your argument is tantamount to saying "I like it, and therefore it should be kept". I like it, too, but it doesn't meet those criteria. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:00, 16 April 2007 (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.