Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invocational media


 * 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. No consensus on a redirect, but the argument for redirecting here equally justifies deleting seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Invocational media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a theory invented by one author which has not gained widespread traction to the point that it would be notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Redirect to Digital computer. I agree there has been no significant or widespread traction of this term, proposed by Chesher in his PhD thesis. The term has been referred to in a small number of specialized books, like this, this and this and this. However I don't quite think this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Too much of this article draws on the PhD thesis and, as such, is WP:OR. A redirect seems appropriate because, In Chesher's own words: The term 'digital computer' is no longer useful or appropriate. I will offer instead what I think is a better concept for these devices: invocational media. So that's where it should point to. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Term invented and used by a single person to refer to something that has long existed and requires no name. I cannot find any evidence that anyone in the mentioned fields has ever used this term. Clearly fails NOTE. As to the possibility of a redirect, I would oppose even that. No one who would be searching for this term are actually looking for generic articles on computers, they would be looking for the original articles which would be the #1 hits on Google. Even having the redir leads to lower quality results for the people who might look this up, although I can't imagine who that might be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (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.