Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memebot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memebot

dicdef, neologism, nn. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Dumb, dumb idea! MEME itself is a neologism. To delete this article on the basis of neologism policy is just obscenely stupid. I'm certain secondary sources could be found that mention the word Memebot. It's a widespread memetical concept.
    -Ormuz Bey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.33.29 (talk • contribs) .
  • maybe put an entry in wiktionary, then link all existing references to the wiktionary article for clarifcation. otherwise how are all the new members of alt.satanism going to get up to speed? it is a *regularly used term in memetics*. or we should just ditch wikipedia entries on 'meme' and 'memetics' itself (i agree, neologism argument invalid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.13.147 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep it -- I found it valuable to have this entry here and linked through memetic engineering. It describes a great term for a great concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.5.164 (talk • contribs) .


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn neo. Google returns a bunch of references to a free webhosting service, memebot.com, which one of the anons above also added into an article, so I'm suspicious of advertising here. Fan1967 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced and seems farcical, to me. PJM 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the neologism . --Starionwolf 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. -- Docether 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research; cites no reliable sources. If this term was actually used in serious studies of memetics, surely an academic citation (even if from a fringe journal) could be found. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Voice of Treason. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or maybe redirect to memetics. --Zoz (t) 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agrey with 200.138.33.29 or at least merge it with meme --alex 03:01, 17 June 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.