Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eumeterate
First''' off, |Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so no matter how needed the word may be, a dictionary definition of it doesn't merit an entry here.  Your submission here was identical to what you submitted to Wiktionary and m-w.com's Open Dictionary: Wikipedia is for encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries. '''Second,''' the principle of |No Original Research discourages the promotion of neologisms in any case.  '''Third,''' as already mentioned in response to the etymology you proferred at the wikt:WS:RFV|RFV of this same entry as entered in Wiktionary, your invented word is ''remarkably'' poorly formed.  '''Fourth,''' it is a fallacy to assume that the lack of any word familiar to you with this meaning makes your inventing it worthy of inclusion: English doesn't have a word for "people who have never heard of Michigan" but that doesn't make the invention of such a word worthy of entering into an encyclopedia by itself.  '''Fifth,''' claims of its (common?) use in blogs are contradicted by a complete absence of search results for this word in http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=eumeterate Google Blog Search.  '''Sixth,''' the page is given to be assumed as a social universal when ''all'' evidence given for its use is limited to three or four people in Massachusetts and Connecticut; thus, '''seventh,''' not in use outside of you and your circle of friends and therefore ''not an encyclopedic topic
— User:Muke, 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NOR (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)