Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inforape


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Inforape

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable neologism. Seems to be all original research. Cites never mention the term "Inforape". Submitted due to discussion on talk page after marked as speedy. Improbcat 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, uncited neologism. --Eyrian 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons I noted above. Improbcat 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, being out of the loop is no reason to attack a valid article Djamur0 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note why this is a valid article. Improbcat 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Term is used in games and irc rooms often, sources that cannot be cited because, for the most part they do not keep logs. Rhynri 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sort of sheltered world you live in, but inforape is an every day word to me and most other people who explore pages outside of the boundaries of wikipedia. I have friends that use the word inforape, their friends use the word inforape, I talk to people who i have never met before that use the word inforape and anyone that does not know the meaning of inforape (it's almost hard not to find one) should be able to go the the faithful search of wikipedia and discover this term. We are merely providing people with the public service wikipedia stands for
 * 

there is one of the first results on google for inforape.Djamur0 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not built on hearsay. --Eyrian 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And in which case it's just a dicdef, and doesn't belong here anyway. Delete as dicdef, complete lack of sources, so fails WP:V as well.    RGTraynor  20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hardly from a site built on inforape Djamur0 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honest and serious curiosity here, what did you mean by this comment? Could you rephrase it as I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that wikipedia is full of inforape? Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, please refrain from personal attacks, you repeated snide remarks are not appreciated.
 * Secondly the link you provide defines inforape as such :"Inforape is the gathering of personal information, by government agencies, for the express purpose of building a dossier on law-abiding citizens.", which has nothing to do with the inforape article created here. In addition, the article's cites never mention the term "inforape" and as such are note relevant to an article about the term/concept "inforape".
 * Thirdly, I am not saying(and never have said) the term doesn't exist, or that nobody uses it. What I am saying is that the term is a Neologism, and wikipedia has policies on neologisms and more specifically policies regarding articles on neologisms. And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.
 * Fourthly the very fact that the references cited do not contain the term the article is about make this article appear to be Original Research, more particularly the part of that definition stating "applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.
 * Fifthly, whether or not I have heard the term before has no bearing on this discussion or not. I hear the phrase "My Bad" on a near-daily basis, and it doesn't have a wikipedia article. Even if the term is in common usage, it is not proper for inclusion in wikipedia until it has been written about by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the palce to promote the use of the term, or information about the term. Wikipedia is the place to write about things which are already notable. Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources; games, IRC and blogs aren't reliable sources, and thus can't be used to verify articles. If you can come up with cites that do fit the reliable sources guidelines, then we'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it... I didn't want to cause a problem. I've created many a wikipedia page, including laying down the initial layout for the Genesis of Aquarion page, which has grown rather large, under different aliases, including Tyrian, and just my ip...  I appreciate dj's support, as caustic as it may be.  Would a collection of 100 screenshots (of in game uses - irc uses), or perhaps a list of 100 random persons supporting its legitimacy be sufficient to have the article reinstated?  I wish to point out the first occurences of "pwn" outside of games/irc/forum posts (generally not searchable) occur many years after the word gained popularity..., and it's references are very recent, despite overwhelming use. Rhynri 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, almost certainly.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and our specific job is not to highlight things before they receive widespread, mainstream notoriety.    RGTraynor  23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you clarify your 'No, Almost certainly?' It's rather out of context... Thanks!    Rhynri  01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

-Improbcat 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I've never heard of it and I get around on the web. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it for things made up in school one day. — Travis talk  21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To satisfy my own curiosity, I [Googled "inforape", there were 31 hits, and of them:
 * 1) five were related to the inforape blog noted above, which uses a different and unrelated definition of the term inforape.
 * 2) fourteen were porn or porn linkspam
 * 3) ten were domain info for various inforape.FOO domains, all of which were parked domains
 * 4) one was a trainer name on a pokemon site
 * 5) one was incomprehensible on google and the link wouldn't come up.
 * Delete - Online Dictionary term. --Rocksanddirt 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" from WP:NEO Corpx 02:23, 27 July 2007 (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.