Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmocc

Add links
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, and suggest participants focus their constructive energies on the Chat room article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:25Z

Mmocc

[edit]
Mmocc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

'MMOCC' is a neologism. Also, this may have been a self-promotional article for mmoccforum.com, although an anonymous user did remove the link. Rhobite 16:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. This is not in wide use at all, and I doubt it even appears in any dictionary. Jayden54 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information is very beneficial to players and staff of MMOCCs and know about them. The term is not in the dictionary because it is a web acronym, is the correct definition for MMORPG in the dictionary? MMOCCForum was linked because it is a wonderful resource and the discussion is based on MMOCCs. It includes help information regarding MMOCCs, links to developing and major MMOCCs. The creator of this article doesn't own MMOCCForum, they just linked the forum due to it's very useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.97.213 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2006.
  • Keep - This information was very useful and WikiPedia is built to have information on EVERYTHING, so you can go to hell about the dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.119.128 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 December 2006.
  • Keep - Is Lindsay Lohan in the dictionary? Nope - but she's on WikiPedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.109.136 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2006.
    • Merits of the articles are to be judged individually. Just because some other completely unrelated topic happens to be in Wikipedia rather than dictionary doesn't mean this can be. Try picking a term that could conceivably be in a dictionary for your analogy next time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --- RockMFR 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason why this page would be deleted. The information is valuable to those who dont know what an mmocc is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • If you don't see a reason why this article would be deleted, how do you respond to the nominator's claims that this is a neologism (which we tend to avoid unless they're proven widespread and well-known)? And think of it this way - you wouldn't want people to learn terms that no one uses. Internet chat is internet chat. I don't know anyone who uses the term "MMOCC". Before you say "but they should be using the term", remember that it's not Wikipedia's mission to push new terms and new concepts either; the material has to be remarkable and widely known before getting here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This information was very useful to me in finding teenage chat communities across the internet. For example, Coke Music - I've never heard of it until today and discovered one of the neatest chat rooms I've ever encountered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.172.63.214 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. The concept is interesting and remarkable (yes, graphical chat rooms with avatars exist and are popular); however, I have never ever heard the term "MMOCC" used anywhere to refer to this sort of chat places. For an Internet-related term, 223 distinct Google hits is a pathetic hit count. There's nothing really remarkable in the article that could not be found in other articles on these topics. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MMOCC shoud be kept as it is very resourcefull. If you go on sites such as;WowWeb Designs, or Pixel joint, and many other online community sites, the term MMOCC' is used many a times. It is not simply trying to put the acronym 'MMOCC' out there, as it is already used, but for those people who do not knnow what an MMOCC is, the artical can be very usefull for finding that right online chat, or just research in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.163.13 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep - If this article goes, who's to say that the MMORPG article sholdn't go too? I'd never heard of the term 'MMORPG' until this year. What is your problem? This is a very informative article. I can think of loads of articles that shouldn't be on wikipedia, as they mean absolutely nothing. Why should Habbo Hotel stay on Wikipedia? It's not in the dictionary. And I'm sure the word 'Habbo' was relatively new when it was launched. I can think of plenty of people who haven't got the faintest idea what a 'Habbo' is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.237.0 (talk • contribs).
    • We're not, I repeat, not discussing the deletion of Habbo Hotel, which is demonstrably a very notable chat/MMOG site. (Go Finland! Yay! =) What we have a beef is the term MMOCC, which no one seems to have used until very very recently. All the while the term "MMORPG" is very established, has been discussed in scholarly journals of many sorts (while "MMOCC" only turns up completely unrelated hits). Note this, however: "Habbo" is a fictional term. It refers to the content of the games. "MMOCC" is a "real" term used to describe a real-world construct. That makes it inappropriate unless it's actually famous. Wikipedia has a problem with original research; it's all good and appropriate that "Habbo" is a redirect to Habbo Hotel because the game itself describes this fictional construct, and as such, we're not publishing new terms, just reporting on an established term that is used in Habbo Hotel. However, "MMOCC" label points to a real-world thing; what's the source for that term? How did it came to be? Who actually uses the term? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who actually uses the term? Go check on habbo chat clients who uses it... Which at any given time usually has over 10,000 users logged in. Is this huge in comparison to myspace? No. Is it still in large use? Actually yes it is. Anyone who actually takes the time to play the game knows it as an mmocc. check. mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I call it a graphical chat with multiplayer game elements. Habbo.com calls it a "virtual community", and the term "MMOCC" isn't (according to Google) found on the website. I don't know what the users call it, but I'd wager few call it a "MMOCC". Like the nominator says, we're not concerned with what the players think the thing itself 'is; we're more concerned with this question alone: who calls it a "MMOCC"?
      If you want an easier, completely (yes, completely, without any sarcastic undertones - but hopefully strong enough to drive point across) rhetorical example: I could declare Habbo Hotel a WasteOfTime, and write a Wikipedia article about WastesOfTime similar to Habbo. (Remember, again, this is a completely rhetorical example. As an IRCer, I know that the only thing that deserves the name of "waste of time" is IRC. =) I could use a lot of fancy words that would define how WastesOfTime operate. Now, assume you have been a Habbo user - or just an ordinary MMOG user - all through its existence, and have never heard of Habbo referred to it as such. Wouldn't you, in that case, be terribly interested of who came up with this term "WasteOfTime", and who uses it in scholarly context, and is it truly as widespread as the few loud proponents claim? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term is even on Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mmocc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.82.146 (talk • contribs).
      • Anyone can submit content to Urban Dictionary. It's not considered a particularly trustworthy site when evaluating popularity of a particular term. Especially one that was submitted in October 2 and has whopping 7 votes since then. If you can find a source that satisfies neologism guidelines and reliable source guidelines, that's good, but I'm afraid tons of stuff gets deleted if their sole claim of fame is an Urban Dictionary entry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A helpful comment for newbies: Please sign your messages. You can do that by hitting the signature button on the toolbar while the cursor is at the end of the comment, or typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. This makes telling apart peoples' comments much easier. The bot tries to fix this, but it's not omnipotent. Thank you for your consideration. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a great resource, why would anyone be so petty as to remove this.. idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.142.89 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • A great resource about a term that few people appear to use. As it's not widely used, we hope it'd be obvious why it is being considered for deletion. Also, I kind of hoped it would be obvious that insulting people is not really helpful toward making people understand your point of view. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing more than self-aggrandizing drivel for an unremarkable website. Burghboy80 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely worthless neologism. This is adequately covered in Massively multiplayer online game and Virtual world. Google shows almost no links for this phrase. - hahnchen 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources at all. The preceding discussion cites no sources. Doing the research myself, I can find no sources. There is no evidence that a concept of a "Mass Multiplayer Online Chat Community" has actually been documented anywhere at all. The concept hasn't even been documented by its creator(s). They haven't even published their own documentation for it on web pages of their own. The article is original research, the primary source documentation of a concept that has not yet been acknowledged by anyone and become part of the corpus of human knowledge. That is forbidden here. Arguments that other things are not in dictionaries are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 30 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mmocc&oldid=1138091331"