Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracified

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 --JForget 01:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veracified

Veracified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unremarkable neologism. Google shows a grand total of three blogs using this word. ARendedWinter 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO.--Blanchardb (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. –Henning Makholm 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Its a neo!. scope_creep (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, although Veracifier should be a redirect to Talking Points Memo. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete, The Laws say this: "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible.." First of all, we have a website called Veracifier which was viewed by 1 million individuals on Tuesday. Veracifier as a term is not well understood. But, it deserves a place in wikipedia as the site receives lots of traffic and has viewers, subscribers, etc. Just because you have never heard of veracifier does not mean that one million other people haven't. It's been around for a while too. You're judging your deletion critera on Google? We have one million people who have seen this word, that's enough to be included on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
— Bengfisher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong delete. Neologism with no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Veracifier receives between 500,000 and a 1 million hits a day, that satisfies notability guidelines for the word 'veracifier.' You can confirm this by going to our YouTube channel where it lists our views.
  • Furthermore, while notability is being considered, we were on the cover of AOL.com, which you can verify by going to the Veracifier.com page and looking at the blog entry for our feat by clicking on blogs at the top. This also bolsters our case for notability and for independent sources.
  • Furthemore, its listed on Fred Seibert, the ex vice chairman of MTV, wikipedia entry. That is our second independent source. Both AOL.com and Fred Seibert are big time independent soruces.
  • Veracifier as a word is legal. Veracified is Veracifier in the past tense. Why is the past tense problematic?
Comment: See WP:GHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. shoy (words words) 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does not change the fact that the independent sources include AOL.com, talkingpointsmemo.com, the nytimes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article is framed as an article on the term, not a website or anything else. Sources that discuss the Veracified website (as with the number of hits quoted above) don't support the article as is. If there are independent sources that discuss the term and its use, or confirm the term and its use, then that should be added to the article. If the subject were a notable youtube video, then views of that video (or similar videos at AOL) might have some relevance. In this context, they do not. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Your telling me if I made a website that was called Veracified, then it would be ok, because it is a website?

If I make a website called Veracifier, like I did, and introduce a new term onto the web, then it is ok because the word points to a website. Similarly, veracified points to veracifier which points to a website. Veracified is just the action form of veracifier. Its the same concept turned into action.

No one is creating a new concept here, we're jsut trying to use the action form of our noun.

Fine I give in. Delete. Please delete it already. But we will be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 21:48 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's an article about a website, and there are sources that confirm that the site is notable in some way, then awesome - have at. This article appears to be an article about a word, and there is no evidence provided (despite multiple requests) that demonstrates that the word itself is in widespread use, or otherwise confirming that the word is notable in some fashion. If it is, then there are links somewhere that demonstrate this. All we ask is that information in the encyclopedia be verifiable. I add that this is not a Vote, and the number of yeas and nays will not determine whether the article is deleted. The quality of your arguments for keeping or deleting are all important - and, with all due respect, threatening to recreate the article at a later date isn't the best argument for keeping the current version. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — Per above. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • By which speedy criterion? –Henning Makholm 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Per all delete votes. I also think it's a misnomer of veracity and verified, and since I'm keen on upholding, or at least trying to uphold proper English, I do not wish to encourage blatant abuse of the English language (or any other language) like "veracified". At best, if this word becomes notable (which it definitely is not at the moment), it should be in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (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.