Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memeration

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

[edit] Memeration

neologism, low Google hits, original research - UtherSRG July 1, 2005 16:39 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism (says so right in the article), original research. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
• Delete. A "proposed idea" for a new word. Promo and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably you are right and with the quality standards used on the English Wikipedia (higher that the ones that can be afforded in some other languages Wikipedias) the heading of the article is a neologism with not enough hits and it should be discarded; as author of the article I am not going to argue on that; but I think it is neither original research nor, certainly, promo. What is said on the article was found in a serendipitously way and not as the result of any personal research, so I have no theory of mine to fight for.

Still, even if the article is deleted, I think that the collective changes of mind are due to new sprouts of memes and not of genes is a factual thing and, though small, a piece of information that should be stated somewhere in the Wikipedia; perhaps it is already said, I do not know.

I found myself not able to incardinate this idea in any existing article (I am not sure of the English I use) and I thought (and I think) that it was (and it is) more natural to state that fact through the neologism, saying clearly that the heading of the article is a neologism. In the article the important thing is not the heading but the idea, there are articles identified not by words but by phrases. But, perhaps, I am wrong

Trying to do that, and to justify what I needed not to justify (my small amount of work on the English Wikipedia) perhaps I put on the article some irrelevant quasi personal data that I should not have put there. If finally the article is kept, I now think that those data should be deleted.Jon Peli Oleaga 6 July 2005 20:17 (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.