Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infornography

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. 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infornography[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO, article does not have any references...valid ones in the EL section do not mention the actual term. It probably is from a particular anime series. Basic search yields nothing, except a few passing mentions which only prove it's a barely notable web neologism. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently notable. I found three publications using the word: two articles including lists of neologisms, and a poem. The name could be redirected to List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes, which features an episode with that title. Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the above sources, the term is used in some books, one of which bothers to explain it [1], but the coverage does not pass WP:GNG. So this article is basically going to be just a WP:DICTDEF in the foreseeable future. Might be worth transwiking to wikt:infornography, assuming they accept neologisms with only a few uses. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, lack of secondary coverage would indicate it is not widely adopted yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 5 February 2014 (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.