Talk:Meatspace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Let's try and not be like urban dictionary, listing rubbish words that are only used by a small proportion of the population.
It is not established enough to list here on wiki, a few random quotes won't do it.
Contents |
[edit] Article cited by Wall Street Journal
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: |
The quote is "Oh, and "meatspace" is what people who spend too much time in cyberspace call the real world. And yes, it's catching on: It already has its own entry in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."
[edit] Article cited by Wired News
|
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: |
I first learned of this term from the show Crossballs. Should the popular culture refrences not be mentioned?
[edit] First Life
Once someone writes up an article for First Life, could someone watching this article toss it into "See also"? Info at http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/21/first_life_sl_parody.html.samwaltz 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Taken care of. Kinda. samwaltz 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transwiki to Wiktionary
This page is an excellent dictionary definition - and nothing more. The opinions offered in the recent AFD discussion are unconvincing. Most tacitly acknowledged that this is a dicdef (perhaps forgetting that Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Two people asserted that this is already more than mere dictionary content but I see nothing beyond the meaning, origins, usage and related terms of a word. That's all lexical content. There is no encyclopedic content here yet - and given the stability of the page, it's unlikely to become more anytime soon.
The current contents should be merged with the existing Wiktionary page and this page replaced with a soft-redirect using the {{wi}} template. 12.168.68.11 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] i'm glad this article just has like
a ton of unreferenced claims =) Cats AND hats (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] objection to proposed deletion
The deletion of this article was proposed on March 13, 2008 on the grounds that it is a neologism.
The Wikipedia deletion policy does not object to neologisms per se, but to neologisms "not supported by reliable sources". This article now has four references (three of which I added), two external links (one of which I added), and a Wiktionary link.
The Wikipedia deletion policy states that "articles than can never be other than a dictionary article ... can be merged ... or moved to Wiktionary". This article is more than a dictionary article, because it discusses the history of the term.
I personally found even the previous proposed-for-deletion version of the article useful when I read it today.
The deletion message states that I may remove the deletion message, so I will.Thiesen (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Added secondary sources
I noticed that the Wikipedia guidelines recommend using secondary rather than primary sources in articles about neologisms, so I added two secondary sources. Thiesen (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
