Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyborgLog
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. Cbrown1023 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CyborgLog[edit]
Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable made-up word. No reliable sources given, but general nonsense and a couple external links to blogs. Femmina 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A blight on the face of Wikipedia. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:V and WP:RS. There are secondary sources there are communities interested in it, there are even ACM conferences associated with it. Did anyone actually look at the references? Having a workshop. For instance look at the workshop articles listed:CARPE2004 Schedule. I don't think I'm going against any policy by voting keep w.r.t WP:V and WP:RS. --Quirex 06:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CARPE2004 Schedule page you privided a link to does not have the word "CyborgLog" in it. Until now it only fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS and I could go on by pointing you to the risible amount (around 400) of unsimilar results on google, all of which are from blogs or blogspam. - Femmina 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it doesn't have to mention that word, it is the same topic. You wouldn't expect academics to use slang. If you think it is an inappropriate title etc then suggest a renaming. The point is that this article is not about a silly word it is about the topic of "glogging" (god that's a lame name, Stephen Mann should be ashamed). You can't claim it fails WP:V and WP:RS with the shear amount of peer reviewed literature about the article. What this article could do more with would be an academic bibliography of glogging related articles but NONE of them have to mention the word glog or cyborglog. Side note did you check the academic literature? I did: [1]. There are mentions of glogging in academic literature (most from Stephen Mann) and these appeared in peer reviewed workshops. Thus there are multiple non-trivial real world mentions of Glogging thus it passes WP:V and WP:RS, and since WP:RS and WP:V are satisfied so is criteria 1 of WP:WEB. --Quirex 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some specific papers to the external links sections which EXPLICITLY use the word Glogging! And one isn't written by Mann or has Mann as a co author. It is in a trustable trade journal, IEEE Multimedia and is a reliable secondary source. This combined with all the peer reviewed work makes this term both verifiable and reliable --Quirex 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you admit that this particular word ("CyborgLog", the one we are discussing about, not "Clogging" or whatever) is just blogger's lingo and it does have no merit whatsoever on its own. - Femmina 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no I've looked at the articles and they specifically mention Cyblorglog; glog is a shortened term for it. You should go and look at the articles too. What I said before about the topic etc was before I went out and found the new references which specifically mention the name cyborglog and use the name. The article has changed, please evaluate the changes w.r.t. the policies. You still have yet to deal with the new references. Look if you want to carry out this war on blogs you have to use WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB but in case where all three of these have been established you will be arguing outside of Wikipedia policy to delete materials. Unfortunately for you and your cause (which seems like reasonable cause since more blogging related pages are vanity anyways) you have chosen a topic with the academic backing of at least 1 tenured professor who's work has been written about in notable academic magazines, journals and conferences. --Quirex 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We'll see what others have to say, but it looks like this article is so non-notable we're the only 2 people on earth who care about it. Your "new sources" all have the same guy as author, Steve Mann. - Femmina 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Frank Nack is not Stephen Mann. This article had been up for VFD before but I noticed you didn't notify anyone from the previous debate or any previous editors. Worry not I have notified them. --Quirex 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We'll see what others have to say, but it looks like this article is so non-notable we're the only 2 people on earth who care about it. Your "new sources" all have the same guy as author, Steve Mann. - Femmina 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no I've looked at the articles and they specifically mention Cyblorglog; glog is a shortened term for it. You should go and look at the articles too. What I said before about the topic etc was before I went out and found the new references which specifically mention the name cyborglog and use the name. The article has changed, please evaluate the changes w.r.t. the policies. You still have yet to deal with the new references. Look if you want to carry out this war on blogs you have to use WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB but in case where all three of these have been established you will be arguing outside of Wikipedia policy to delete materials. Unfortunately for you and your cause (which seems like reasonable cause since more blogging related pages are vanity anyways) you have chosen a topic with the academic backing of at least 1 tenured professor who's work has been written about in notable academic magazines, journals and conferences. --Quirex 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you admit that this particular word ("CyborgLog", the one we are discussing about, not "Clogging" or whatever) is just blogger's lingo and it does have no merit whatsoever on its own. - Femmina 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some specific papers to the external links sections which EXPLICITLY use the word Glogging! And one isn't written by Mann or has Mann as a co author. It is in a trustable trade journal, IEEE Multimedia and is a reliable secondary source. This combined with all the peer reviewed work makes this term both verifiable and reliable --Quirex 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it doesn't have to mention that word, it is the same topic. You wouldn't expect academics to use slang. If you think it is an inappropriate title etc then suggest a renaming. The point is that this article is not about a silly word it is about the topic of "glogging" (god that's a lame name, Stephen Mann should be ashamed). You can't claim it fails WP:V and WP:RS with the shear amount of peer reviewed literature about the article. What this article could do more with would be an academic bibliography of glogging related articles but NONE of them have to mention the word glog or cyborglog. Side note did you check the academic literature? I did: [1]. There are mentions of glogging in academic literature (most from Stephen Mann) and these appeared in peer reviewed workshops. Thus there are multiple non-trivial real world mentions of Glogging thus it passes WP:V and WP:RS, and since WP:RS and WP:V are satisfied so is criteria 1 of WP:WEB. --Quirex 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CARPE2004 Schedule page you privided a link to does not have the word "CyborgLog" in it. Until now it only fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS and I could go on by pointing you to the risible amount (around 400) of unsimilar results on google, all of which are from blogs or blogspam. - Femmina 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think WP:WEB is inappropriate for this topic, this is a word and thus we should be discussing if it meets WP:NEO. The topic is verifiable there are papers which both use the term and are about the term. These references are not studies about the word but about the topic using this word as the topic. So the debatable part here is if the last reference not written by S Mann is just using the term or is about the term. The term is verfiable but the widespread use of the term is questionable as most literature is associated with S Mann and the University of Toronto. --Quirex 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wholly unnotable, despite the tergiversations above to claim otherwise. Eusebeus 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism: arguments that the word has been used before are flawed and is not a critiera for inclusion on wikipedia. Skrewler 23:05, 15 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.