Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transistasis (2nd nomination)
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, consensus is that the article is neologism with Reliables secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Transistasis (2nd nomination)
This was deleted before at AfD in March 2006 as a neologism, but I don't know whether this one is similar enough to qualify for CSD#G4. It was created again in July 2006, all in one go, by Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs), since blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. All the edits since then have been basically tinkering. There are no references. The only link to it from an article is one from Homeostasis inserted by its originator.
Using the same measure as last time, in two years use of the term does not seem to have taken off: "transistasis" gets 960 hits on Google and 1 on Google Scholar (a paper in Japanese on the relationship between interpersonal relationships and mental health). Compare "homeostasis" with 3,620,000 and 542,000 respectively.
The most interesting Google hit is to a page here which quotes chunks of the article as an invitation to contact nemiwashi.com for "information on how to create the future".
Delete as a neologism with no references or evidence that it is in actual use. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete article seems to be a hoax. The creator itselve is Mythologia has been blocked indefinitely from wikipedia. - Mdd (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - looks like a hoax and is definatly a neologism and if the creator has been blocked it is very likely to be a hoax - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire —Keenan Pepper 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Makes grand claims involving biology and sociology, has no sources, and repeatedly veers into vague rambling tangents.--Nydas(Talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (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.
