Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperzine

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperzine

Pure website advertisement. Notability not established. Hurricane111 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Jaxal1 19:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• recommend researching before assuming anything—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorsepluggy (talk • contribs)
• perhaps the site specific references could be toned down, or deleted—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It's still a non-notable neologism.Jaxal1 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, No real context to even determine what this is in reference to. Borderline nonsense as written.--Isotope23 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• the concept of hyperzine may be neological, but the word is a legitamate coinage for an observable phenomenon—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
• Gene Fowler and Stephen Morse are both well known editors, poets and publishers during the San Francisco renaissance, and although the word is new, they are not. Deleting this would be the equivalent of deleting an entry by Buckminster Fuller because his concept was hard to understand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit1948 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It is interesting to note that every single reference to either Gene Fowler and Steven Morse currently in Wikipedia were added by (the appropriately named) Smorsepluggy and 63.231.134.166 within the past 48 hours. It may be worth looking into their notability. Any San Francisco historians around? Jaxal1 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am familiar with the site, and edited what appeared to be some badly written and hyped prose. I believe the changes should do away with original objection of blatant advertising (that objection had some validity).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit1948 (talk • contribs)
• Delete nn periodical which isn't even published, just distributed as ones and zeros --Ruby 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're comments are off topic. The discussion is about hyperzine as a word, not whether or not a web publication can be called a publication because it's written in binary as opposed to alphabetical ink code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)

I agree as far as that goes. After all, the New York Times is "just distributed as light-absorbent chemicals on paper". "The medium is the message", or something. Hoewver your article appears to fail Wikipedia's criterion of verifiability. I vote delete pending your citing some useful sources and explaining why this is not just a non-notable neologism. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Spirit1948/Smorsepluggy/63.231.134.166, please sign your edits. Jaxal1 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• excuse my ignorance but I don't know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Scroll down in the edit screen. It'll tell you. Or click the little blue 'unsigned' next to all of your edits.Jaxal1 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• As I am obviously new to this process, I do not understand "per nom", nor do I really understand the problem with my entry. I certainly am not interested in getting in to some sort of pitched battle over a word, but I am a bit of a wordsmith and find this process intriguing. I'd appreciate discussion.

216.49.220.19 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Per nom" is shorthand for "Per what the nominator of this article said", "per" being, basically, "according to". Read it as "I agree with wot 'e said". :-) As for the problem with your entry, see the suggested links such as non-notable neologism and verifiability. To put it another way, if Buckminster Fuller privately used the term "slenge" to describe the runny white of a fried egg this would not be notable, (or, probably, verifiable) purely on the strength of Fuller himself having said it. "Hyperzine" isn't (or appears not to be) in any sort of wide use except by the proponents mentioned in your article. This isn't hard and fast, but the criterion is somewhat like a word getting into the OED; printed sources have to be cited (I'd expect that "printed" doesn't really imply "in ink") and self-referential sources aren't valid. There's nothing wrong with the word "Hyperzine" per se, but the article doesn't begin to explain why this word is of importance outside the community of three or four people who coined it. Tonywalton  | Talk

Thank you for the very complete and understandable explanation of the decision making process for entries such as hyperzine. I confess to being new to this, and I can now understand how the original entry was deficient. I have attempted to restate the explanation in a more acceptable manner. Am I on the right track? 216.49.220.19 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP as rewritten

Spirit1948 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'KEEP' The concept of interlinking virtual and literal media is well described by the word, hyperzine, as opposed to zine (which is slightly pejorative), and is closer to the magazine traditionally associated with poetry journals

63.231.134.166 16:55, 25 February 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.