Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/App-O-Rama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] App-O-Rama

App-O-Rama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a promotional article. It's been repeatedly speedied, prodded, deleted, undeleted[1], had a merge to Fatwallet proposed and rejected, had promises of expansion, had spam links removed, but still doesn't pass WP:CORP. Proceeding to AfD to settle the matter. --Elonka 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if it isn't promotional, it still fails WP:NEO. "[...] is a term that refers to a strategy of completing multiple applications in a relatively short period of time." --Czj 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, neologistic spewage, borders on WP:BOLLOCKS, I don't think any amount of extra time is going to be able to save this steaming pile. Only evidence of anything resembling notability is also evidence of it's blatantly spammy nature (in other words, remove the spam link and the whole thing falls apart). Xtifr tälk 11:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not appear promotional, it describes a term that seems fairly popular, at least according to google. However, still fails WP:NEO, because of these reasons: The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate. The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Tractorkingsfan 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me revise what I just said. There are certainly elements of advertising and how-to here, but one could make the argument that these are removable and the article could then stand on the notability of the term. I just wanted to dispel even that notion, so we cover all the bases. Tractorkingsfan
  • KEEP Hello. I performed several edits on this article as I am familiar with the term. It is a popular financial term but many people do not understand it, thus the need for an accurate and informative wiki. Its a term used to describe a series of applications. It has no relation to any particular company. It seems the wiki was greatly improved from its first incarnation to my last edit. Most of the previous problems were addressed...it had several links and sources added, spam was removed, it was categorized and wikified, etc. So it was developing into a good wiki. Unfortunately, it appears some people began to dismantle the wiki, removing categories, spamming fatwallet, etc. It is no more and no less a neologism than the wiki on stoozing (the term for 0% credit card investing in the UK) which has an active wiki. In fact, Stoozing wiki is a clear "how to" guide...this wiki, at the time of my last edit, is not. Perhaps all references to the fatwallet website should be removed. But there is a lot of interest in this term and if not proper for wikipedia, maybe should be moved to wikipedia dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.154.187 (talk • contribs) 08:09, November 17, 2006


  • Keep In the guide to deletion, Neologism means that the user considers this article to be about a word or phrase that is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article. May be either a literal neologism (a very new word) or a protologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). This term is used outside the community of the fatwallet website , examples:here and here and here. Thus it is not protologism. It shows a documented history of use for well over two years in the public domain, and is therefore not a neologism. It is not about a company or an online discussion forum, though its use can be found in those places. Granted it certainly needs more work, but does not merit deletion.

fwfinance (UTC)

  • Delete I'd like to see some sources for this otherwise this is Original Research. Spartaz 22:19, 20 November 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.