Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kepe' keep. ;) - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typoglycemia

Term does not exist, nor is the study real (i.e. it is an urban legend currently making the email rounds) Kjl 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As to whether it's an urban legend or not, Snopes' says undetermined. --Howcheng 23:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, you'll notice the actual term "Typoglycemia" doesn't appear in the Snopes article, nor did it in the original email I got a year or so ago - it seems like at the very least that the word itself was made up recently in that way that internet memes evolve... Kjl 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Whilst doing a bit of digging on google I cam across this rather good source The page needs rewriting to explan that it isn't a real term but the element of truth behind it could make for a really good page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I suppose we could make the page about the internet meme itself, as opposed to the supposed brain condition. Ah, actually, I see you are doing that right now.
• Weak delete. This thing has been an Internet meme/urban legend for a while, but I have my doubts it's very notable or encyclopedic. --IByte 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well If I got one of these emails in my inbox I may very well want to check Wikipedia to see what if any on the email was true. It's notable enough to be veryifyable, which is what counts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (change of vote), the article is improving. --IByte 15:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep much better now. --Howcheng 15:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article has potential, just add a cleanup and stub tag. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well, I originally started this Vfd (my first - be gentle, please) but now that the article is being expanded, it looks like a keeper to me as well. How do I go about removing the Vfd? In other news, where is the correct place to discuss the accuracy of the article? In particular, I don't think there is any element of truth to it at all - I think the "random jumbling" of letters in the email is not random at all; in particular, you'll notice that in all of the words, the ordering of the consonants is kept consistent, or if consonant order has been changed, only adjacent consonants have been switched, and then not separated by intervening vowels (e.g. according->aoccdrnig (accrdng->accdrng) & phenomenal->phaonmneal (both phnmnl), Cambridge->Cmabrigde (cmbrdg->cmbrgd)), but it is much harder to read, of course, if the letter order is actually jumbled: (e.g. phenomenal->pneanoemhl, According->adinroccg or Cambridge->Cimgadrbe). I'd just go edit the article myself, but I don't want to be all POV about it ;) Kjl 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To close a VfD, you sit back for a few days until the lag time is over and an administrator determines there are enough Keep votes to keep the article, and (s)he will remove the VfD tag. Further discussion of the article can be done on its Talk page. --IByte 00:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Kepe Atrilce has potnetail, mybae shulod be rmaend thugoh ;) Pakaran 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.