Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidentalome (2nd nomination)
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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Incidentalome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet general notability requirements. Violates WP:COI: [1]. Lacks reliable secondary sources. Orphan since 2009 de Bivort 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was almost incoherent; I redid the introduction so that we can tell what it is talking about. I will evaluate later to see if the term has come into wider use than just the original paper that established it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I looked on google scholar and pubmed before nominating the AfD. I assume you'll come to the same conclusion about usage that I did. de Bivort 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism, not yet widespread enough for inclusion. I found only one [2] usage of this term that is not directly traceable to Dr. Kohane, who both originated the term and wrote this article (and bragged, in the remarkable link cited by nominator, about how he was able to sneak it into Wikipedia). Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON and the term will eventually become mainstream, but for now it isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, you have listed this as "second nomination" but I don't think that is correct. I think this is its first AfD discussion. The page was deleted twice previously [3], but it appears to have been done via speedy or PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell from the deletion log that it was speedy or prodded? de Bivort 16:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2007 one says "expired prod". The 2005 one was deleted as "nonsense" which sounds like a speedy. Neither mentions AfD, and there is no record of an AfD discussion on the talk page. Although I guess there wouldn't be one, if it had been deleted and this is a recreation. So call it a hunch, that there has not been an AfD. BTW considering that this is the third time the article has been created, by the same user who is on record as gaming the system to get it into Wikipedia, maybe we should consider asking for salt as well as "delete." --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any tricks to get more input here? de Bivort 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2007 one says "expired prod". The 2005 one was deleted as "nonsense" which sounds like a speedy. Neither mentions AfD, and there is no record of an AfD discussion on the talk page. Although I guess there wouldn't be one, if it had been deleted and this is a recreation. So call it a hunch, that there has not been an AfD. BTW considering that this is the third time the article has been created, by the same user who is on record as gaming the system to get it into Wikipedia, maybe we should consider asking for salt as well as "delete." --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell from the deletion log that it was speedy or prodded? de Bivort 16:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, you have listed this as "second nomination" but I don't think that is correct. I think this is its first AfD discussion. The page was deleted twice previously [3], but it appears to have been done via speedy or PROD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (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.