Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewquake
- 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. ✗plicit 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Viewquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NEO. Sourced to a post on Lesswrong (a blog) and the guy who made up the word. This could maybe be on Wiktionary but I don't know how that project operates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
A message has been added to the Talk page.Infogiraffic (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Infogiraffic The sources you have added do not help it pass notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @PARAKANYAA, at least 900k people seem to have been exposed to the term, assuming they made it up to Hanson's exposition of the term in this video. Sounds quite notable to me. Or do you have specific requirements in mind for notability that I am unaware of? I can also list some discussions on Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias as a reference, if you'd like... Infogiraffic (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Infogiraffic Notability of terms is not about the perceived popularity of the term, for a neologism to be notable it must have secondary sources that discuss the history of the term. All sources here are primary, not reliable, or simply usages of the term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @PARAKANYAA, at least 900k people seem to have been exposed to the term, assuming they made it up to Hanson's exposition of the term in this video. Sounds quite notable to me. Or do you have specific requirements in mind for notability that I am unaware of? I can also list some discussions on Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias as a reference, if you'd like... Infogiraffic (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find any coverage in independent reliable sources to support a stand-alone article on this word. Mere uses of the word are specifically called out in WP:NEO as not supporting notability (
"To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term"
). No general notability. Could be a Wiktionary entry. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- Hi @PARAKANYAA, @Alexeyevitch and @Schazjmd, I've just made 'viewquake' into a Wiktionary page, so the Wikipedia page seems to have gotten superfluous. Infogiraffic (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Frankly, I'm not even sure it belongs on Wiktionary. Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2024 (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.