Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testa-lying

Testilying 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 to keep the article.

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as the tag was added May 9, but there doesn't seem to be a voting page (real-time search is currently disabled, so can't say with absolute certainty). Has a 'move to wiktionary' tag, but given that it seems to be a rarely used neologism (most of the 283 hits are Wikipedia & forks & mirrors), I don't think it should be sent there. Procedural/delete. Niteowlneils 22:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment There was an article in the Boston Globe about this a couple of years ago, but it was spelled differently, "testilying" I believe. The implication was that it was a commonly used word among policemen. I'm going to see whether I can find it... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I've heard this word before, but this article can never be more than a dictionary definition. Or rather, anything that could be said in this article that wouldn't be a dictionary definition should be said in perjury instead. Transwiki to Wiktionary, maybe; I don't know enough about their standards to know whether they'll take this. —Triskaideka 00:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In light of the information added, I'm updating my vote to merge and redirect to perjury. I still don't think that this particular type of perjury warrants a separate article, at least not until the existing perjury article becomes so big that it needs to be broken up. —Triskaideka 20:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I found some of the stuff I was looking for and have put some of it into the article. I'm now removing it from here so as to cut down on the length of this discussion. I'm not saying it merits an article. I am saying a) it's a real word b) in fairly widespread use c) and this article spells it wrong. It should be "testilying" (i.e. "testifying" with one letter changed). If kept, it should be moved to testilying. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Oh, someone already did. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if Dpbsmith's references are added as citations. I'm not sure that the practice can be discussed that much, unless it's by the reporters cited, as it has to be something the police won't speak frankly about. Geogre 02:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Actual information about the frequency of the practice makes this more than a dictdef. Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Not just a dictdif. Interesting article. Academic Challenger 03:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant, widely discussed phenomenon. Gamaliel 05:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move to testilying and keep. Testilying is not simply perjury: it's perjury by police, but that is a less euphonious term (maybe even less common) and should be a redirect to this. Certainly a topic that merits an article, and probably more than just the U.S. material here. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as Testilying, where it's now been moved. JamesMLane 13:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Changing vote to keep now that it's at the more commonly used spelling. I added an ext link to usage that appeared in the University of Colorado Law Review to illustrate its usage outside the general news media. Niteowlneils 19:10, 17 Nov 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.