User talk:71.132.154.187

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] App O Rama

You made some interesting points in the deletion vote. But I still don't totally buy it. WP:NEO can be difficult to interpret, here's what I consider the controlling policy statement in this case: Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. This is a tough one, I don't know how old this term is, but it strikes me as not ready for inclusion. Could be wrong, let me know what you think. Tractorkingsfan 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your IP ever having made an edit to this article. Do you have a user name? Most of the people who have contributed to this article have edited only App-o-Rama or App-o-Rama and some other credit card type of thing. Are these people credit experts, or are there other motives involved? Everything about this just reeks of adverising. If you could list these offline references and get rid of some of the stuff in the last couple paragraphs, where it reads like the article is advising people on beginning an app-o-rama right now, even providing a link. Tractorkingsfan 14:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)