Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamification

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, but the frindlization of "Wikipediafication" sounds like a plan :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamification

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism, no significant discussion found on Internet, reads like a personal essay — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. This is someone's attempt at repackaging old ideas in new bottles. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar link shows plenty of hits, undermining the assertion that this is an NN neologism. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of hits, but no consistent usage, several hits are in scare quotes. Only one hit comes anywhere close to the definition offerred in the entry, most of them are logic papers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Lots" of GScholar hits = 13 or so... and I have to agree with Hairhorn analysis. Google print gives me 9 hits ([1]). None of them, however, appear to confirm it is a notable term with one recognized definition. At best, I could say we could consider wiktionary... do we have a notability policy for neologisms? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms, which says, among other things, "to support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Hairhorn (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's probably an article to be written on this topic, but it isn't this one. Reads like an attempt to coin/promote a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting concept, but no evidence that the word is anything more than a neologism. Note that in modern English this kind of word is easy to make and readers will understand... well some meaning even if not exactly the one you had intended. For instance on WP we have "deletionists" and so forth. If I were to talk about the "Wikipediafication" of something people would also get it. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nom. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.