Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemetics


 * 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. A clear consensus exists herein for deletion. North America1000 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nemetics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was created by members or associates of the Institution for Nemetics. Despite several requests and elapsed time no third party sources have been provided. The article is mostly original research and is promotional. Editors have been asked if there are any COI issues and in the main have not responded. I've searched Google Scholar and asked colleagues at the University and no sources of any value have come to light -- Snowded TALK 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The question of COI was answered directly by me, and also by NewsNeus, who created the article. If there is anything "promotional" in it, I am hard pressed to understand what it might be - I don't see how anyone, including the International Nemetics Institute members ho made minor edits, stands to be "promoted" or gain anything from this article. There is no money involved, no one is paid either to write or edit the article. The one area where you may have grounds for deletion would be notability. That said, there are many pages on Wikipedia that have a notability tag and continue to exist for quite some time. I'd be interested to know what criteria are used to create that situation. Culturecom (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Either I'm incredibly stupid, or this is basically a hoax. The whole thing reads like something written by Alan Sokal. Just take the phrase that was just added to the article: "When analising conversations on different digital media (Twitter, Facebook, etc), nemetics focus on different levels of conceptualization: The individual thinking sequence (NEME)) can develop in repetitive and recursive processes, evolving into collective communication exchange, through a particular flow of events or behaviours." As far as I can see, this actually does not mean anything. If there's something here, the whole article would need to be re-written in order to become understandable. Hence delete either per WP:HOAX or per WP:TNT, whichever is more applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. When I read the article, I thought "this is written in psychobabble". But Randykitty has hit the nail on the head: it's not psychobabble, it's a parody of psychobabble. It is not a sincere attempt to convey understanding of a real subject to interested readers. Maproom (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the initial version needed improving, but it was better than this final collective version. At this point, there are too many changes to revert. But to understand the content, please check the section "Memes as discrete units". Both Nemes and Memes work in the same way and belong to the same research field.NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like the term does exist, and is used in some books, see Google book search. However, these all seem to be passing mentions, no evidence of significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it exists and I'm certain it will keep going for a while... but I do agree that notability is a point. However, is there an objective mesurable criteria to validate significant coverage? If we consider the number of countries where there are trainers or researchers using this term, it is possible to mention people in US, India, Spain, France, Canada, and Namibia, without doing a deeper search (and not all of them are experts in fractal analysis of transmedia discourse).NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I have a Masters degree in Mathematics, and have never heard of the term. Also, just because the term exists, that doesn't necessarily make it notable- Wikipedia is not a not a dictionary. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is incomprehensible. I haven't checked the references in detail, but, if there is a valid concept with scholarly notability, it isn't described here.  My own guess is thatWP:TNT is more likely than WP:HOAX.  It is incomprehensible. Just because it is in English doesn't mean that an English-reader can understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I blush in shame, but I hear. I'll try to do it better next time!. NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is incomprehensible pseudointellectual hogwash about an utterly non-notable topic. People who spout this stuff should spend a month or two reading Ernest Hemingway, who knew how to write a concise sentence that actually makes sense. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even the article creator admits "I do agree that notability is a point". Lots of verbiage but no substance, certainly not in reliable, independent sources - a case of The Emperors New Clothes. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Using the NEME model: Notice that the subject has no independent reliable sources. Engage with fractal psychobabble. Mull that the article is at best utter nonsense and at worst a blatant hoax. Exchange, !voting delete. —teb728 t c 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Care is taken not to define the discipline or its boundaries very rigidly". Well, actually considerable care seems to have been taken not to define it at all; reading the article is like drinking a mug of fog. The advice of is excellent, though my own recommendation would have been Raymond Carver. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2016 (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.