Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memebot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Memebot]]: delete, original research, cites no reliable sources |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''Delete''' as neologism. -- [[User:Docether|Docether]] 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' as neologism. -- [[User:Docether|Docether]] 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' as [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]]; cites no [[Wikipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources]]. If this term was actually used in serious studies of [[memetics]], surely an academic citation (even if from a fringe journal) could be found. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' as [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]]; cites no [[Wikipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources]]. If this term was actually used in serious studies of [[memetics]], surely an academic citation (even if from a fringe journal) could be found. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NEO]]. [[User:Voice of Treason|Voice of Treason]] 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:17, 12 June 2006
dicdef, neologism, nn. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dumb, dumb idea! MEME itself is a neologism. To delete this article on the basis of neologism policy is just obscenely stupid. I'm certain secondary sources could be found that mention the word Memebot. It's a widespread memetical concept.
- -Ormuz Bey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.33.29 (talk • contribs) .
- maybe put an entry in wiktionary, then link all existing references to the wiktionary article for clarifcation. otherwise how are all the new members of alt.satanism going to get up to speed? it is a *regularly used term in memetics*. or we should just ditch wikipedia entries on 'meme' and 'memetics' itself (i agree, neologism argument invalid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.13.147 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep it -- I found it valuable to have this entry here and linked through memetic engineering. It describes a great term for a great concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.5.164 (talk • contribs) .
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn neo. Google returns a bunch of references to a free webhosting service, memebot.com, which one of the anons above also added into an article, so I'm suspicious of advertising here. Fan1967 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unsourced and seems farcical, to me. PJM 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the neologism . --Starionwolf 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. -- Docether 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research; cites no reliable sources. If this term was actually used in serious studies of memetics, surely an academic citation (even if from a fringe journal) could be found. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)