Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-wording
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 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] E-wording
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-notable, unreferenced neologism. Does not meet WP:NEO. Elonka 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MER-C 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. e-neologism? hmmmm... SkierRMH,12:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. E-yew. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Non-Delete for what reason? not partisan, doesn't promote any particular company. needs more background info and detail, though. User:Linguelle— Linguelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Unsourced, unreferenced neologism as above. Fan-1967 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Non-Delete Source and reference are its use in industry jargon. May not be mainstream term, but is a valid term used to describe a service. K2Ked 19 Novemeber 2006)— K2ked (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Could someone research or provide relevant personal knowledge here and explore exactly how widely-used the term is in the communications industry? If it is widely used, then it shouldn't be deleted. If it truly is an obscure term, then get rid of the article. Aaron2wiki 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)— Aaron2wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We don't accept personal testimony, here. Please cite sources. The requirement for sources was pointed out in the nomination. Uncle G 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- No-Delete, I guess To answer Aaron's comment, I work for a Canadian marketing firm and I've come across the term several times, but had no idea what it meant, so I actually searched for it on Wikipedia and came across this debate. That's just my two cents, though. K2Ked 06:25, 20 November 2006
- Read what Uncle G said just above. Personal testimony ("I've heard this term") is not an acceptable substitute for citations from Reliable Sources. Voting repeatedly, without offering sources, is pointless. -- Fan-1967 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not verifiable. Wickethewok 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep it up, you deletion nazis. In fact, why don't we delete everything that isn't already universally-known and has 100% consensus among all wikipedia users? Then we'll ensure we REALLY have great content. Linguelle 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ColourBurst 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Linguelle's point, in perhaps more respectful terms. We can't be too eager to delete every new thing that's posted, especially when it's clearly an informative article or has the potential to be. So I would say hold onto it and try to get more contributions from users who are familiar with the subject. Jofan 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Except that doesn't actually agree with the actual policy WP:NEO which says neologisms are to be avoided unless they're in widespread use, as documented by reliable sources. The reliable sources are missing. ColourBurst 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Linguelle's point, in perhaps more respectful terms. We can't be too eager to delete every new thing that's posted, especially when it's clearly an informative article or has the potential to be. So I would say hold onto it and try to get more contributions from users who are familiar with the subject. Jofan 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ColourBurst 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it up, you deletion nazis. In fact, why don't we delete everything that isn't already universally-known and has 100% consensus among all wikipedia users? Then we'll ensure we REALLY have great content. Linguelle 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment--I learned something new, and the topic is notable, but the article seems to be original research. Can the content be verified? 38.100.34.2 23:18, 24 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.
