Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stackronym

Stackronym was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Interesting, but neologism; Google gives 23 hits, mostly saying "i made up a new word!" --Golbez 06:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Kind of cute, BJAODN. I hope it catches on and we can put it back into the main article space someday. - RedWordSmith 07:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I happen to think it's a perfectly cromulent word.

The above was added by an anon IP whose only contribution was this vote. I hope he feels embiggened by it. --Golbez 08:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. —siroχo 08:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is somewhat the same thing as a recursive acronym.Garrett Albright 08:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This should belong either in wiktionary or the acronym page. Can never be encyclopedic on its own. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:09, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing, but a neologism. Nadavspi 21:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A neologism, and not really a good one (portmanteau word already exists, plus agglutination). Geogre 00:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs expansion, but it's a term I've heard people use before. It's not the same as a recursive acronym. A stackronym is an acronym where at least one of the letters stands for another acronym, which may also be a stackronym. There are stackronyms that are not recursive acronyms, and there are recursive acronyms that I wouldn't count as stackronyms. Perhaps the phrasing should be made clearer so people don't get confused and think it's deletion-worthy? Factitious 02:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• 'Delete'. Wikipedia is not the place to make up new words, if it has had greater use outside of Wikipedia then it would be a good article to reinstate. - 63.197.31.110
• Keep/Merge Although the word itself isn't in very common usage, the concept is more common than you would think. This disussion shows a good number of examples of the concept, and does include the term stacronym in it, although I'll admit it is reffered to as a neologism even in that discussion. Even if the term stackronym is not yet in common usage, at least the concept itself deserves a mention in the acronym writeup. --Nynexman4464 06:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

here is another, earlier, reference to the concept of a 'second order acronym'

• Delete - I like it and hope it catches on, too, but until it does it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ClockworkTroll 06:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - yet, I'm overwhelmed by an odd sensation of guilt and confusion. Barneyboo 00:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep--PlasmaDragon 21:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.