Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"vaccine video"

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. -- Longhair\^talk 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"vaccine video"[edit]

Contested prod, non-notable neologism. The only references that are worth anything do not mention the term once. Roleplayer (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. all the references are to YouTube and blogs. This article was used as a reference, but the term "vaccine video" doesn't appear once Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is my first attempt at a wiki page but I do think the criticisms are a bit unfair. I was primarily focused on explaining what a vaccine video is in the context of viral videos and viral marketing. Hence it's true that some of the articles do not mention "vaccine video" specifically but these articles are not being cited for that purpose and I do think they accurately support the propositions for which they are being cited. I actually went Wikipedia to find the term "vaccine video" because it's been used a lot in discussions about unsuccessful viral videos and I was surprised to find no definition at all. While I understand it is a newer term, I think it's a mistake to ignore it altogether. I've gone back and cited a couple of examples of its use by viral marketing companies and in blogs. Mmcfly55 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the two NYT examples it meets the sourcing requirement, but there should ideally be a better source for t he actual term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two NYT examples don't actually mention the term once. It mentions a description of the term, but not the term persay. Doc Strange (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Neologism with no independent reliable sources to back up its existence. The NYT article, as noted above, does not use the term. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- neologism -- not enough serious coverage, and not enough serious meaning, at this stage. If the term becomes widespread (unlikely), article can be created in a few years or whatever. But not now. Also, the whole things comes much too close to being original research. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, protologism without reliable sources. At best a sentence or two in viral video. It's an attempted viral video that doesn't go viral, that's all. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Breaks Geogre's law too. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it hasn't "caught on" enough to not be a neologism. -- Atama ^chat 00:12, 14 February 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.