Talk:adolescentilism
RfD discussion — KEPT and moved to RfV
From this archived discussion:
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
request for deletion after seeing AfD on en. wiki, not a word/neologism/misspelling either way (checked define: in google, dictionary.com, and one AfD participant checked two print dictionaries). (See http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adolescentilism#Adolescentilism) Noian 05:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to get a handful of Google Book hits, RFV. DAVilla 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, not a hoax but seemingly just a dictionary word: frequently defined but never used. -- Visviva 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now cited (not by me) and clearly idiomatic: keep. This belonged at RFV, not here.—msh210℠ 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, keep and send to RfV, where it could go either way, AFAICT… † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
All that notwithstanding, this is a verification issue, and nothing else. This discussion ought to be closed and this word send to WT:RFV. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. My comment moved to RFV. DAVilla 06:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Request for verification
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
- Moved from WT:RFD DAVilla 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Only one citation so far is any good. The Devil does not convey meaning, and Annabelle du Fouet is mention not use. DAVilla 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 2003 use by The Devil does indeed convey meaning, in the same way that the following dialogue conveys meaning:
- >I often eat apples.
- That’s very healthy of you.
- The above dialogue only conveys the meaning that apples are a foodstuff and that it is a healthy thing to eat them regularly; it says nothing about apples being a type of fruit, that they are about the size of a tennis ball, that they can vary in colour (usually greenish to reddish), but that doesn’t mean that the use of (deprecated template usage) apple in that sentence isn’t intended to convey those qualities. If we expected the full meaning of a term to be explicit in a quotation for it to count, we wouldn’t have any entries for terms expressing complex concepts. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the case of apple we could get many citations in support of any attribute of a good definition. In the case of a rare word, we can perhaps get three citations in support of its existence and we can infer what it might mean. The current definition is clearly an overfitting of a definition.
- The definition ("The desire to act like or be treated as an adolescent.") has at least three attributes: "desire to act like" (vs. behavior alone) or "desire to be treated as" (vs. enjoying the behavior in itself) and "adolescent". One could easily argue that the "adolescent" element is contained in the stem. I don't think that -ism or -ile are specific enough to make clear what this means simply from the morphology. Three citations would be just enough to specify one of the two definitions. The citations don't seem specific enough to allow one to determine either meaning to be correct.
- There is no such term in, for example, the 1012 pages of entries in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2006) (nor "teenism"). Perhaps it would be possible to make some inferences from the meanings of puerilism and infantilism or the meaning of adolescentile. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you’ve just made all the arguments on both sides. Sentential context of use isn’t the only important context. Appeals to etymology, the patterns of meanings of related words, and the prefatory definitions of the authors themselves are all vital for correct definitions. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry redlinkified. —RuakhTALK 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)