Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like Pollution

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Pollution

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is a neologism, probably made up by the article creator. I can find no sources for either Like Pollution or Gratuitous Liking, a related probable neologism which I am specifically including in this AfD. LadyofShalott 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both asap. No google hits, pointless articles. We should allocate a new speedy criteria to such neologisms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no sources seem to exist, both are pure WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO... also, agreed, Dr. Blofield- that would really let us not have to waste time going through the AFD process to get rid of obvious neologisms. Ducknish (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a stubbified version of both to Like button, with an {{unreferenced section}} tag. It is highly unlikely that this is just a made-up hoax. The basic information seems sound, although I don't know what folks in the industry call this and therefore what terms to use when searching for sources. There is more to this subject than just the name, and NOTNEO doesn't authorize deletion of solid information merely because it happened to get posted under a poor article title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no (or only very few) notable sources using the terms are found. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Like Pollution is an essay, not reflective of any notable concept outside of Wikipedia. Gratutious Liking was created by the same user a few hours later, covering essentially the same topic. I agree that the general concept is not a hoax; it is a criticism of social networking behaviour that at least one person dislikes. But neither is that notable or, as far as I can tell, discussed in published sources outside of these articles. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I can't find proper sources for either. Silver seren^C 06:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete twain per WP:NOTNEO and Dr. Blofeld. Thanks! ⇒T A P 08:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'm not citing any policies because this is an obvious no brainer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AFD tag that links here is placed on Gratuitous Liking and not Like Pollution. Although for what it's worth, both articles should probably be deleted, or maybe redirected to the social networking article. WTF? (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look again; it is on both. (The redlink doesn't mean that it doesn't link here; it has something to do with template caching that I don't understand, but if you click on it, you will come to this page). LadyofShalott 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Well, delete both pages anyways! WTF? (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the red link to blue by adding ?action=purge to the URL while viewing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No sources exist, pure WP:OR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While anyone who uses Facebook has certainly seen this, no sources=no article. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If we can't verify it we shouldn't have an article on it. delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (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.