Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewser
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable neologism; does have an article in wiktionary, but cannot find it in reliable sources Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete checked a couple subscription databases and nothing there either. Non-notable neo. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to interactive media. Without a rigorous evaluation of these particular sources, the term does appear to have been used in professional discourse: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Nevertheless, it seems to live on the margins. NTox · talk 21:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And lets do something about these pesky new user accounts creating crap articles! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "references" do not appear to refer to the term; in fact my cursory look suggests that they don't even use it. They are at best primary sources and at worst shout-outs to an editor's favorite interactive media. Cnilep (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the citations in the article itself, or the ones I provided? The latter (in all five), use the term directly, and three of those are academic sources. I think #2 is the only strictly primary text—the gentleman who wrote it appears to have coined the term. Indeed, the other four state that they have borrowed the term. I agree, however, that it's still not enough to hold up notability. NTox · talk 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to footnotes in the article, which NTox has since removed, and not to the sources NTox suggests above, which I have not yet read. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the citations in the article itself, or the ones I provided? The latter (in all five), use the term directly, and three of those are academic sources. I think #2 is the only strictly primary text—the gentleman who wrote it appears to have coined the term. Indeed, the other four state that they have borrowed the term. I agree, however, that it's still not enough to hold up notability. NTox · talk 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete (WP entry only). My main concern about this is that it's a springboard for more neologistic nonencyclopedic entries if it's kept. If we keep Viewser, we'd be more incited to keep XBoxer, Wiizer, 4chaneer, LUEser, UseTuber, Gooser, Yahooser, MothrFlickr, Faceboozer etc. Where will it stop?
- So my argument is, to an extent, an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in reverse. If that's invalid... that's why I didn't boldify my !vote. 217.251.156.107 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 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.