Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rinxiety
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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rinxiety[edit]
unencyclopedic and silly neologism —optikos 21:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I thought this would be silly when I saw it on Newpages, but I checked it out and it isn't. The topic has inspired a surprising amount of expert scientific and cultural analysis. Read the NYT article. Melchoir 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment “surprising amount of expert scientific and cultural analysis.” Hmmmm, what I see is a surprising amount of uncited possibly-false assertions in Rinxiety. For example “People live in a constant state of phone vigilance”. They do? Where is the citation to “scientific analysis” supporting that assertion? And the uncited “hearing sounds that seem like a telephone's ring can send an expectant brain into action” sounds to me like pop-cultural/snake-oil-saleman conjecture. Where is the scientific analysis that supports “it is the subconscious calculating how popular we are”? By my count there are more uncited possibly-false assertions in Rinxiety than there are sentences/phrases that are supported by veriable fact. For a topic that “has inspired a surprising amount of expert scientific and cultural analysis” I myself am surprised at how little of that has been overtly cited in the Rinxiety article. —optikos 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article sucks. If you like, you could pare it down to a couple of factual sentences. I'm just saying there's potential here, so we shouldn't delete. Melchoir 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sentences in rinxiety comprise that set of verifiable facts. So far I see zero sentences that are supported by scientific experimentation. All that I see is some pop-culture newspaper articles that offer little more than conjecture and entertainment. —optikos 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article sucks. If you like, you could pare it down to a couple of factual sentences. I'm just saying there's potential here, so we shouldn't delete. Melchoir 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment “surprising amount of expert scientific and cultural analysis.” Hmmmm, what I see is a surprising amount of uncited possibly-false assertions in Rinxiety. For example “People live in a constant state of phone vigilance”. They do? Where is the citation to “scientific analysis” supporting that assertion? And the uncited “hearing sounds that seem like a telephone's ring can send an expectant brain into action” sounds to me like pop-cultural/snake-oil-saleman conjecture. Where is the scientific analysis that supports “it is the subconscious calculating how popular we are”? By my count there are more uncited possibly-false assertions in Rinxiety than there are sentences/phrases that are supported by veriable fact. For a topic that “has inspired a surprising amount of expert scientific and cultural analysis” I myself am surprised at how little of that has been overtly cited in the Rinxiety article. —optikos 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Melchoir, but the article needs a lot of help. Michael Kinyon 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NEO doesn't say that all neologisms should not have articles; this one is adequately verified. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 7 September 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.