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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlexicon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by original author in 2006 with no stated reason or improvement, this is probably a dictionary definition but in any case not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sources don't look reliable - they appear to be personal websites, written by the same author, and the definition given seems to be the invention of that author. A google search shows that the term does appear to have some usage, so it's possible that an article on it might be written; this isn't it however - neither the content nor the sources would be useful for a rewrite, so probably best to delete per WP:TNT. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a student project in 2006 [1]. Not a notable neologism, and probably not a neologism at all, but a title of an utterly non-notable work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As presented here, exclusively used in context with Nick Walker's student-project website (as noted above). Walker isn't notable, nor is this project; there's simply no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. There are uses of the term in computer aided learning and linguistics (see here, for example), but I don't think there's enough to make that concept notable. Even if I'm wrong in that regard, the current content is unrelated and not suited for retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. Plus per WP:NOTNEO. SITH (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2019 (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.