Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitalism

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. WP:NEO applies and the keep'ers have not rebutted the argument that the article is "uninformative" - and probably could not be made so. Redirect to digitalis - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalism

Neologism that is only used in this context in this wikipedia article.--Peta 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term Digitalism was first coined in an issue of Wired (magazine) (which is referenced in th article) and has been used by increasing numbers of other people since. The article could use some cleanup though. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 344,000 google hits on the word "digitalism". They may not have been used in the same sense as the article is using them, though, but clearly it's a word that's being used. --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to digitalis. "Digitalism" originally refers to poisoning with foxglove, and this is really the only established sense that isn't a cyber-buzzword neologism. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Loremaster 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Browsing through the first few hundred entries in a Google search seems to indicate two things: (1) a lot of people seem to like the word, and (2) they all seem to have a different idea of what it means. I see nothing to support this article, and nothing to even support any common definition that an article could be built from. Fan-1967 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this is dicdef. I agree with the research of Fan-1967, though I'm not sure what basis for deletion is described - neo? nonsense? Tychocat 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way neologisms deserve articles is when they have become notable concepts. Since this word does not represent one concept, but seems to be thousands, none of which have any widespread currency, I think WP:NEO applies. Fan-1967 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tychocat 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to cleanup and expand with WP:V. Just because there is more than one usage doesnt mean it cant be verified in a few of those usages. If nothing is done to the article in 4 days I'll change my vote to delete. Zos 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it means several things, and those several things ought to have articles, it should become a disambiguation page. The problem I see is that none of the neologistic meanings stand on their own merits as far as I can see. Smerdis of Tlön 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the top Google hits seem to be about the musician. I don't see any evidence this term is anything other than a loose blanket term for various scientific, philosophical, religious, et al ideas (possibly) coined by the author of the Wired article. This is reflected in the Wikipedia article, as it's just a listing of articles on such loosely related ideas. At this point, that puts it in the category of uninformative neologism. Tox 08:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on the diversity of things that show up in the search, my guess is most of them are unrelated to the Wired article, and are independent inventions of the word with different meanings. Fan-1967 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Tox. -- Jeff3000 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to Delete, though if the article must be kept I would support a Move to "Digitalism (philosophy)" or "Digitalism (religion)" to avoid ambiguity.--Rosicrucian 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.