Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Disc Jockey Advocate


 * 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, certainly doesn't meet WP:V at this point. --- Deville (Talk) 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Disc Jockey Advocate
[Check Google hits] Neologism. From the Google hits, it might even be a protologism, but as the creator removed a prod with the explanation "Industry Specific Summary Term", it might just be a plain old neo. Either way, it fails WP:V, and could be part of a promotional campaign of some sort. See also Articles for deletion/Disc Jockey News and Special:Contributions/Dude Walker. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, nn--Jusjih 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP AbsolutDan, Jusjih,  An earlier attempt to respond disappeared??  There is no intended advert campaign.  Merely supporting terms that are widely used within the industry.   If Wikipedia is to be viewed as a reference repository, defining related terms seems to make sense.   The Mobile Disc Jockey industry, by minimal equations, exceeds 1+ billion in annual sales.   Clarification of misconceptions seems only prudent.  Please advise.Dude Walker 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see an earlier comment from you here, perhaps you're referring to your comment at this other AfD: Articles for deletion/Disc Jockey News? Anyhow, Wikipedia has various standards for article inclusion. One is WP:NEO (neologisms), an indication that terminology that isn't widely used shouldn't have articles for them. Another is WP:V (verifiability), which indicates that articles must have sources to back their content. Content that is unsourced is subject to removal. If you can provide citations from reliable sources proving that this term is widely used in the industry, the article would then meet inclusion criteria and thus would be kept. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. And agree that Dude Walker appears to be running an ad campaign here; whether or not this article is a part of it, he should bone up on his etiquitte. My Alt Account 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If this term is widely used within the industry, why are there no google hits for it outside of wikipedia? JulesH 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete lovely spam, wonderful spam. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My Alt Account: Being fairly new to Wikipedia, I'm unsure what etiguitte you speak of, please advise.  JulesH: The term is widely used within the industry within association meetings, at conferences and within chat forums.  You make a valid point and observation.  There is a limited supply of credible information that relates to the Mobile Disc Jockey industry.  Mostly individual websites that promote services, not the industry itself. AbsolutDan to address my earlier "comment".  I was responding to this specific discussion.  My original comment disappeared when I pressed "save page".   It was, as if, someone had deleted my response immediately.   With respects to neologisms, by wiki standards, you are correct.  There is very little in writing currently.  Perhaps in time the term may be reintroduced. To All Concerned  I've read the article(s) relating to WikiSpam.  I can see how my contributions/inclusions have been misinterpreted.   I was following help suggestions from Wikipedia that created this dialogue.   Items shown in red indicate a term or article not yet present within Wikipedia.  That prompted me to be more thorough and supply cross reference material that it appeared that Wikipedia needed.  Two things I find ironic: 1) I find it ironic that assertions of SPAM or AD campaigns were created in part, by Wikipedia's "help" suggestions.  2) I find it ironic that an article currently within Wikipedia created confusion about me.  That article drew me here & clarification was offered, which has since been deleted.Dude Walker 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will post a response to this on your talk page as it's somewhat off-topic. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:59, 10 September 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.