Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-creativity

: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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[E-creativity]]=

:{{la|E-creativity}} ([{{fullurl:E-creativity|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-creativity}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable neologism seemingly coined by the article author. The conference mentioned is also organised by the author. Prod tried and removed by author. Blowdart | talk 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable neologism and advertising puffery verging on outright complete, total and utter bollocks. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - E-creativity seems a perfectly plausible idea/concept to me. I don't see how it comes under WP:BOLLOCKS. Antivenin 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - protologism which appears to be used in the sense indicated by the article on only one website. Google brings up a number of people using it to mean "creative things to do with the internet" as well, but I don't think that;s solid enough to warrant an article either. Artw (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AUTHOR COMMENT: I think "creative things to do with the internet" (above) falls very comfortably into the catchall definition that I have proposed, thereby only strengthening my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarbaba (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Desr author, that's the point. The term is a vaugely defined catchall that no-one but you is using. Please see WP:NEO for why this is likely to lead to deletion. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Comment - Okay Alex. So, why not look to finnesse the definition, instead of just deleting the entry. After all, isn't that how this sytem is supposed to work? And, the term is in any case finding, and will further find, increasing usage into the future, whether this way or that. Wot say? Bollocks as yummy prarie oysters, or as just danglers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarbaba (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

:*Reply - More important than its extreme nebulousness is the word's complete lack of secondary usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as a protologism -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no "there" there, as Michael Jackson's nose surgeon said.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (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.