Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exocortex


 * 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. – Avi 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Exocortex
I created the article when I first joined Wikipedia, it is unsourced vanity and original research with only little notability (i.e. used by a single science fiction writer.) I find the page a personal embarressment and I am surprised that it lasted this long without an AfD.


 * Delete - as original article creator and AfD nominator. --Ben Houston 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I speculate there to be a good number of aspiring transhumanists who would want this article to stay. I suppose you may however remove all references to yourself if you so desire. --Amit 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Xe is making the very point that if all references to xyrself were removed, there would be no article left, since xe created the concept, and the only traction that it has gained in the real world outside of xyrself is use by a single science-fiction writer. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bhouston, are you and the science fiction writer the only people who have ever written anything about exocortices? If so, you could challenge this article for being original research, the promotion of a novel concept that has yet to have gone through a peer review process and gained acceptance by the world at large. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created the article when individuals started giving the science fiction writer credit for coining the term (in his Summer 2005 book) when it was clear I had coined the term in that sense in 1998. The term has been used by fans of the science fiction author.  It is not a scientific term but rather a fringe specualtive term.  Maybe it should stay?  But the article needs to be majorly cleaned up with regards to original research and vanity by someone other than myself.  --Ben Houston 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The question still stands, because such cleanup bears upon it: Is there anything written about exocortices that doesn't have you as its source? That exocortices are speculation is not important.  It is whether people independent of you have written about them that is important.  Is this a concept that is limited to one, possibly two, people?  Or has the world at large accepted the concept (even if such acceptance is merely to argue against it)? Uncle G 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually tried to track the mentions of the term "exocortex" that were distinct from references to my minor website. The list is on del.icio.us here: .  There are only a couple dozen -- and I checked the whole web via a number of search engines.  Via google there are 20K+ hits for Exocortex but almost all are references to my website or my various projects.  Thus I would say that it doesn't have the notability as a separate concept from my website to warrent its own Wikipedia article -- again I wrote it to fend off this science fiction author from claiming that he coined the word -- I was concerned common usage within sci fi circles was going to take off, but it didn't.  That said, if there is going to be an article in Wikipedia on "exocortex" I would like to remain noted as the one who coined the term and not the science fiction author Charles Stross.  --Ben Houston 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it may take some more time before the term catches on, and I do think it will. If the article is deleted now, at least some of the info in it could be lost. --Amit 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NEO - it starts "An exocortex (speculative) ... ". If the creator acknowledges it's speculative then WP:NOT (a crystal ball) applies. Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, it's crystal ball atm. I agree that, unless another term comes along, it will most likely be a popular enough term for wikipedia in the future, as I can't think of a better term for this concept than exocortex, but, as for now... Do make sure that if it ever comes around again you get credit for creating it though.  --PresN 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if almost (but not all) references are to the author's website. Article needs cleanup, but if more than one reliable source can be listed I think it should stay. I agree with Amit's comments. If the article is deleted, some valuable info would be lost. Scorpiondollprincess 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, have it deleted. No prejudice against recreation in the future with entirely different content though.  Wickethewok 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Author & Nom. 205.157.110.11 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, what is embarassing about it? It is quite well written and has links. Yes, it might lack some strong sources. Ok, for encyclopaedic purists, it might well be deleted. But then, we could delete half of Wikipedia as well. If Amit wants to keep it, then keep it. I see no harm in doing so. --Ligulem 07:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, it should be deleted. --Loremaster 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.