Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mismedia


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mismedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable slang terminology OverlordQ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced neologism consisting of original research which appears to be a conflict of interest. It sounds like an intriguing topic, but it also opens the doors to non-neutral points of view in interpreting different media as "mis"-media or not. Leebo T / C  19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely neologism. No evidence of common usage. i kan reed 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism: only 465 unrelated google hits. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment You have valid points, but this is a term that I created years ago and it is now being used more in industry circles and I myself am using it more. I work in production and this is a term that I use to describe the new phenomena which you will be seeing much more of as digital workloads expand and become more efficient as well as seeing the democrazation of media through direct delivery channel distribution.


 * If it is a Neologism it is Diffused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpazos (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2007
 * Comment The major problem is that core policies like Attribution are non-negotiable. If there are no third-party written publications that you can attribute this word to, then it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. Leebo T / C  20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author admitted he created it, 'nuff said. Non-notable neologism. Realkyhick 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has failed me :< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpazos (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 March 2007
 * Wikipedia fails if we don't have any standards for inclusion. An encyclopedia needs to be reliable. Sources are always needed. Leebo T / C  03:34, 27 March 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.