Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notworking

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. --Ezeu 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notworking

Neologism, speedied once today and recreated. Unable to verify wide use. Referenced magazine does not google. Accurizer 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• i think this article is excellent and accurate. i am a recipient of the magazine if you want a copy..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhowitt (talk • contribs) Sorry also new here so didn't reaslise about signing Jmhowitt
• Delete. Yeah, people use the word, but it's just a pun. Aplomado - UTC 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest it's more than just a pun. A lot of people are irritated and angry at some of the spammy behaviours exhibited by "business networkers" Jim Wade 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Already speedied once. IrishGuy 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Better in Wiktionary? Redvers' advice was to start with a Wiktionary definition, and than progress to Wikipedia as appropriate. Sounded like a good approach to me. Jim Wade 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment My advice was to start the article in your userspace at User:Jim Wade/Notworking, and then ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page to see if it fits with our standards as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This did not happen. And please don't misrepresent me, as it rather forces the opinion below. Also, I note the contribution patterns of Jim_Wade (talk • contribs • count), Jmhowitt (talk • contribs • count) and Mtdierbeck (talk • contribs • count), which strongly suggest sock/meat. ? ???DV?RS? 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - did not mean to misrepresent. I merely misread - I am new here. What is sock/meat? Jim Wade 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Answer Two terms which show up often in these discussions. A "sock puppet" is when a person creates a different login name to pretend to be multiple people. A "meat puppet" is when a user has a friend log in to show support. Fan1967 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Fan1967. So, when a newcomer is wrongly accused of these [I assume] wiki-crimes, what is he to do? I assume you ARE accusing me, Redvers? Or did I jump to a wrong conclusion? Jim Wade 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, not notable. ? ???DV?RS? 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism, really, really, really not notable, also heavy sockage --Deville (Talk) 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deville- can you clarify precisely who you are accusing of pretending to be multiple people? I ask in case I have unwittingly hit some wrong button or something. I started here a few days ago and did some very minor edits to the Ecademy entry, identifed only by my IP (81.151.188.122) I then registered (under my real name - unlike some) in order to initiate this Notworking entry. If I did something wrong, I'm sorry, but I don't understand the charges, your honor ;-) Jim Wade 07:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment What is going on? I put up an article and don't understand why there's (1) a problem and (2) people being a accused to socking / meating activity. Aren't you jumping to conclusions based on the 4 paragraphs I've posted? Look at my history here, I've never even entered an article before and I've been on wikipedia for a while. Strange that we're being accused of questionable behaviour by people who aren't using their names, unless your parents named you DV?RS?, Irishguy, Aplomado and Accurizer. Why is it the aggressive behaviour is coming from people who are posting under usernames? Can we resolve this? mtdierbeck

comment The names people edit under are completely irrelevant. The fact that this was your first article is irrelevant. How many articles anyone else has written is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the subject of the article is not notable. IrishGuy 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply I can elaborate for you the reasons why I nominated the article for deletion. It appears to be a neologism, which should be avoided on Wikipedia. See the guideline: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Also, it does not appear notable, as evidenced by the absense of google hits. See the essay: WP:Notability. Because of the lack of corroborating sources, it is difficult to verify whether the information presented in the article is accurate. See the policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is also quite possible that the information contained in the article could be original thought, which cannot be posted in Wikipedia. See the policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I hope this helps explain the reasons for my nomination. You should not take this nomination personally. We would be happy to accept contributions from you that falls within Wikipedia policies. If you have other questions or wish to discuss further, please leave a note on my talk page rather than continuing the discussion here. Regards, Accurizer 13:55, 3 May 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.