Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiport

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. No other keep comments apart from creator. TravellingCari 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiport

Contested prod. Neologism being described as a class project. The article merely states that it will be expanded over time, and the creator admitted that he himself has coined this term. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Blatant spam. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiport is described as community based support within the IT industry through wikipedia software.

In addition:

Of course I coined the term. There is always someone somewhere that coins any and every term that we have used. Wikiport is a proven method of community based self help technical support through wikipedia software. There is no word yet coined to refer to this practice so I simply created one. The practice of the aforementioned can be witnessed at http://www.supportwiki.cisco.com

This is not blatant spam and your proposition of such is not only offending, but irresponsible and baseless.

I am a senior at the School of Information and Library Science at UNC Chapel Hill. If you wish to confirm my identity send an email to notquiteleet@unc.edu or visit my website http://www.notquiteleet.com

I have been an IT professional for the past 8 years and I heartily contest any proposal to delete this topic before I can add more content to it, within the next 5 days.

Notquiteleet (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Honestly, no one really cares about who you are unless you are. Notability is not inherited and since the article isn't about you, anything about you doesn't apply. Secondly, this is a bunch of neologism. The term isn't notable enough to be used in any context. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Leet, I'm sure you mean well, but you're proposing to do something that simply isn't allowed here. Townlake (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term may be made up but there is no term that currently describes this practice. Before deciding so hastily on the validity of the coined term, perhaps you should take the time to become familiar with the merit of the phenomena. I will be continually updating the page over the next few days. Yes it is my first wiki page contribution, but I dont recall that being a legitimate penalty against any contributor and certainly violates the spirit of what wikipedia is intended to be.

I would also ask who exactly you are to be the ultimate authority on what is and what is not "notable" enough to be used in "any context". Unless you are an active component of every information circle on earth you cannot possibly be the judge of notability. Hell, this term may be in wide use in some information societies and simply not publicized yet.

Notquiteleet (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the aforementioned WP:NEO, and I'll even throw in WP:AUTO. Writing about yourself or something of your creation is strongly discouraged, if only as a check on notability. If you/your creation is truly notable, someone will get to it. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notquiteleet can easily dump it in Wiktionary when it becomes well known. But for now, stick to your workplace. Spec ial K 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not writing an autobiography. I am documenting what is coming to be a very wide practice using enterprise collaboration software (wiki) to provide technical support. You guys are so quick to judge when you dont even have a full scope understanding of the issue in front of you. That is a great example of irresponsibility.

Now in the case that the coined term isnt "popular" or "notable" enough, please qualify and quantify exactly when a term has achieved such a status. I will look forward to an exhilarating, thorough, and well articulated response other than "no" or "delete".

Notquiteleet (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Notquiteleet: self-admitted neologism. I also can't help noticing that, in the first couple pages of Google results for "wikiport", there are at least three seperate other definitions and as far as I can tell not a single usage reflecting Notquiteleet's definition, do I'd be very surprised indeed if this ever does take off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. A good article on "Wiki support community" or "Support wiki" would be welcome. Notquiteleet would be well advised to refrain from naming it after his own protologism, to review Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiability which will answer his questions, and to begin by collecting reliable sources first, before writing the article. Happy editing! ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is I provide linked evidence to current and well established organizations practicing the phenomena I described. The first few google results in use of the word in several contexts. One is wikiport as in the act of using wiki to test additional software features. It plays on the phrase of "porting" as in porting games from one software platform to another. Another entry is for a script someone wrote for the wiki environment to copy content from one wiki subsystem to another, again relating to porting software as "port" is a common term and function in that community. The last result of my search page has an entry about wikiport that refers to a web site portal used to access aggregated content. One result actually uses wikiport as the name of a variable in a software script.

My representation of this term with the provided links of evidence of this practice seems to be much more credible than the top 10 google search results.

Notquiteleet (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There is an overwhelming consensus behind this policy. If you want anything to be covered here, it needs to first be covered elsewhere. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an original thought. This is a documentation of a widespread practice.

Notquiteleet (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Itub mentions below, you might be able to make an article title "Wiki-based technical support" that documents this practice, if you can find a few reliable sources to back it up. However, there are no such sources that refer to "wikiport" in this context - this use of the term is your original thought. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please understand and try not to take this personally. There are at least three long-standing policies to the English Wikipedia, behind which there are broad consensuses, that would have to be thrown out to keep this article. And that simply isn't going to happen. I see that, except for a few isolated edits months ago, you're brand spanking new here. Welcome. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the policies we are quoting and understand why we are saying what we are. By the rules that maintain the English Wikipedia, this article should be deleted. And that's really about all there is to it. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article using a descriptive title such as Wiki-based technical support is certainly feasible if good sources are found to document the practice without conducting "original research". However, I don't think it is appropriate to coin and promote a new word to describe the concept here. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty obviously a neologism that people aren't using yet. "Tech support wikis" are a concept worth covering somehow (well, at least briefly in related articles), but there's no need to come up with new terms... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This may be a neologism, but it also appears to be a redundant one; most of the Google hits I was able to find on the term wikiport refer to the act of porting data from Wikipedia to elsewhere. The 'widepread practice' referred to by the article's author does not appear to be that widespread.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2008 (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.