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 Keep, no support for deletion and merging is an editorial decision that can seek consensus on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigroaning[edit]

Wikigroaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Neologism, only weeks old; needs at least merge and redirect... but to where?

Delete - Seems to be spam for the site of the same name. --BenBurch 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- read the article, and then the accompanying articles from the WSJ, the Guardian, the Toronto Globe & Mail. It ain't about the website, it's about US. And they're right. This time, voting to delete won't make it go away Mandsford 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- My God! How dare they besmirch our beloved Wikipedia with these slanderous yet wholly accurate criticisms! When the Great Asperger's Council rules mankind in 100 years time, I shall scoff from my mighty hoverbike at those fools who thought that we should be writing more about the tangible universe and less about Transformers and furries. Because they will have been wrong!^{[citation needed]} Then we shall see the heights that humanity can reach when it has a full and comprehensive 20,000+ word profile of every anime character in the universe! --FuegoFish 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahahaha. --MichaelLinnear 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though a fairly new concept, its gainning strenght as one of the most shameful aspects of wikipedia (and one that we know perhaps TOO well), deleting the article seems like censorship more than anything else.
• Keep - look like a notable term, and has some good sources. The game makes me sad, because it doesn't count sub-pages, or linked articles that fork section :( --Haemo 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - term is notable with good sources but it is not good thing for Wikipedia. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For now, keep. Needs to be better developed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete. In further research, this seems to be little more than a phenomenon from Something Awful. SA may be popular, but that doesn't constitute notability of this concept. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this article, it has become a well known term and since it is a concept you cannot delete it on the grounds that it could be offensive to wikipedia --Getalifebud 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia does have a 'bias toward things that don't matter'. The task is to write better articles about serious things, not suppress that fact. The term has taken off in the media because it's true. Nick mallory 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - verifiable sources; time limit does not impact on notability Think outside the box 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per FuegoFish. east.718 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Haha. Keep --HanzoHattori 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Although pretty young neologism, has adequate refrences, such as the one in The Globe:""Love" is worth 6,486 words in Wikipedia; "masturbation", 10,487." Maybe change the name to "Wankerpedia?" Edison 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A Wikigroan for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigroaning versus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) gives 17,066 points for the Daniel Brandt AFD versus 18,532 points for this AFD. I think their scoring algorithm needs some work. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I see why: The Brandt AFD was courtesy blanked. That explains it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a hilarious concept but writing an article about it looks like we are trying to be in on the joke. Why bother? It's kind of pathetic really. Adam Bishop 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the noteability guidelines easily. I see no reason why it should be deleted simply because some editors find it offensive. Jtrainor 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep God forbid Wikipedia contain anything that could cast Wikipedia in a negative light. Lacerta 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable term, provides adequate third-party references. Hard to see how you delete this except just out of spite. Xihr 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A new concept which shouldn't be deleted. I read SA occasionally, and the popularity of this idea seems to be growing. Remember also that neologisms need time to develop in popularity- compare truthiness, which has gone through AfD 3 times (and was voted to deletion the first time), and is now a GA.--C.Logan 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I suppose, or possibly Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. I think my favorite one so far is Voltaire vs. Voltron, although Heavy metals vs. Heavy metal umlaut is pretty solid too, and Archaeology vs. Indiana Jones is one that has received some media commentary. For one that hasn't received much notice, I suggest this Academy Award-winning film vs. this deleted scene from Star Wars. JavaTenor 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It might be something to merge later on, but right now the notability is high enough and there is enough verification that it should be kept. I'm not sure why we're linking to the site though, it barely works and doesn't give any information. Xtreme680 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A true measure of maturity is the ability to laugh at oneself. --MichaelLinnear 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and widly discussed. Probably merge if (when) the hubbub dies down. --Candre23 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Come on, it's online culture. If you're going to have OMGWTFBBQ, you gotta have Wikigroaning there too. I for one think it's quite an entertaining concept, yet one that highlights the vast potential of Wikipedia rather than degrading the lack of questionably-nominated 'legitimate' content. Davers 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Quasi-protest delete Consensus is already with us, but I just don't see the point in having an article about this slang neologism, despite the ample sources. Okay, you can all shout me down now. YechielMan 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I shall join Yechiel in being a tomato target. This is a protologism, not a neologism. Avoid neologisms suggests that protologisms are almost always deleted, for good reason. The term is not, IMVHO, nearly as much in popular usage as thought - we are being blinded by one blog entry that's gotten a little bit of press coupled with our tendency to overemphasize the importance of anything wiki-connected. Oh, well. Guess I'll renom it 5 years 1 year from now when nobody can remember it. LaughingVulcan 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely new word, and there is no way of determining if this term will have any significance in the long term. Wikipedia is not a news service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge, insufficiently notable to have an independent article. Perhaps worth a sentence or two in Criticism of Wikipedia or somewhere like that. Everyking 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly this 132-word article describing a valid criticism is besmirching the good name of our little Lightsaber Facts and Pop Culture Trivia Repository. --Rubber cat 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This AfD may be broken on the grounds that this was recently linked to by Something Awful, the website that appears to be popularizing the term. Furthermore, no evidence that this is in widespread usage - the fact that all of the sources are dated within the past month virtually guarantees that this is a protologism. - Chardish 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Eight of the keep !votes contain implications that the people who want this article deleted are trying to avoid casting Wikipedia in a negative light. This is a false premise, as the article was nominated for lacking notability per WP:NEO, and I haven't seen a single Delete !vote that suggests that we try to silence criticism. - Chardish 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO basically states that there should not be an article on a neologism unless there's reliable secondary sources, which this article does. WP:N is also met in my opinion. east.718 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also requires that the term be in widespread use. I don't think that after two weeks of existence that it's possible to verify that the term is in widespread use. - Chardish 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either I'm missing something (more than likely) or your interpretation of WP:NEO is incorrect, as I've just gone over it three times. It's probably me though, as it's 4AM over here. east.718 07:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Something Awful did not popularize the term. Something Awful invented the term], and then someone else made a website about it. And it has subsequently hit the mainstream media. At least it's a "non-destructive Wikipedia game", as opposed to "hiding a clue to the supposed sexuality of your high school nemesis in the article about Lieutenant Worf". Also, Fuego Fish, GB2FYAD (well, 2BSS, really). Or HD2KV2. DS 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable neologism. And no, I'm not arguing for deletion because I disagree with the "wikigroaning" concept. I'm against fancruft on Wikipedia, for the same reasons I'm against this article. Korny O'Near 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable, non-biased article. Needs expansion, though. 71.126.192.8 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for all we know this concept could disappear back into obscurity over the next few months, it is therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. WP:WINAD, WP:ASR. Sandstein 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besides the fact that it is less than a week old, it has sources attributed to it and already has some notability Greg Birdsall 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia as long as no information is lost.--T. Anthony 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A neologism with growing, but still insufficient, notability. That a few mainstream media sources have chosen to write about it doesn't mean it's not a neologism. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's about Wikipedia, except to note that this article probably wouldn't exist here if it wasn't. =) Powers ^T 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You figure anyone else is Wikigroaning right now about how much attention this AfD is getting in comparison to others?  :) LaughingVulcan 01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is more referenced than some articles no one question here. It should not be deleted because it is a critic of Wikipedia. It should be kept as a motivation to improve this place. Youkai no unmei 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether we should keep articles critical of Wikipedia; the answer to that question is unquestionably "yes." Furthermore, we do not keep bad articles because worse articles exist. - Chardish 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Something Awful or, barring that, delete. Cumulus Clouds 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the name may be a Something Awful-ism, the concept is not, and has been pointed out in numerous articles and on national television (Stephen Colbert, comparing the length of Truthiness to Lutherans).- Primal Chaos 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, merge with Criticisms of Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a legitimate criticism, and humorous at that. --75.209.252.179 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was on the main page of the online Globe and Mail, if I recall correctly. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia and chainsaw-trim. Yes, it's a visible topic. Yes, there's documented use and sources. No, it's not a topic that needs a giant article about it, it can and should be covered by articles with wider scope. Heck, the point of the phrase is that we should not give minor trivial topics undue weight. Let's not dig our own grave, people. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good thinking. I can get behind this. --Rubber cat (meows/purrs) 08:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable concept. If it falls back into obscurity in a few months time we may always reconsider. That's what AFD second nominations are for. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's backwards. If it falls back into obscurity in just a few months, it was never notable to begin with. We should delete it now and wait to see if it ever becomes anything more than a cute neologism; that's what AFD first nominations are for. Powers ^T 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting an article now because it may turn out to be non-notable comes awfully close to crystalballing. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand why you might say that, but that argument could be used to include any neologism at all, completely invalidating the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. "You can't say it won't be notable 10 years from now, so you have to keep this article!" wouldn't fly on any other neologism's deletion discussion; why is it being used here? On the contrary to your suggestion, my argument is that the word is not notable. If it were notable, it wouldn't be a neologism anymore. Powers ^T 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neologism and notability are not mutually exclusive. A neologism can most definitely be notable, and judging from the sources it seems that this is a notable neologism. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right; I overstated that a bit. I just think it's backwards to create an article and delete it later if it "becomes non-notable", rather than wait to create an article and create it later if it "becomes notable". Powers ^T 03:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Painfully self-referential neologism. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redo AFD Someone made the AFD and then the article I'm not sure it lost the AFD tag through most of the AFD. Several days ago I heard about the AFD and then I looked at the article and saw no tag and couldn't find anything in the history, but it looked like the AFD was a keep. But now it appears somebody removed the AFD tag from the article. SakotGrimshine 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's okay. It was only off for a day or so. There are still many days left, and if we need to, it can be extended a bit. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. clear attempt at self-aggrandizement--Divise 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand this article with loads and loads of cruft, per Wwwwolf's excellent reasoning. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I was just writing an educational science fiction story that is a thinly-veiled satire of Wikipedia cargo-cult rule-following - too bad I only had a good idea and the science fiction side ended up too cliched, so I ignored the thing for a while. =) Look, just because the rules say We Can Do This it doesn't mean we should do this. Nothing changes the fact that this is a tiny topic that can be covered adequately in a very compact form. And on an unrelated note, if I say "bring out the chainsaws", it usually doesn't mean "add some more cruft to be chainsawed", it usually means "remove the cruft with the chainsaws". An encouragement of a different kind of participation in the exact same event, see. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, yes. I understood. Nice grave, though, boys! Dig deeper! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore the AFD and do the right thing which probably means a minimal merge in this case. Criticisms of Wikipedia is a good place for this. Friday (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Definitely notable. Although the phrase is new, it has already been mentioned in various reputable sources. --Potato dude42 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it's only one paragraph of information. Is there anything else worth saying about it? The existence of various reputable sources tells us that the content is notable, but does not necessarily mean that it warrants an individual article. Criticism of Wikipedia seems like an ideal home for this bit of information. Everyking 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- at the very least, merge into and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. The concept deserves to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. And, uh, verifiability isn't really a concern for this one. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect with Criticism of Wikipedia and possibly mention in Something Awful. As has been mentioned above, most people that are suggesting delete are not wanting to silence all Criticism of Wikipedia, and many of us (myself included) would !vote keep on that article. But this is a protologism, and is probably bordering on WP:SELF, too. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Criticism_of_wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage. There are about two useful sentences here. It's ridiculous how as soon as Wikipedia is mentioned in any context, the mention's significance is magnified exponentially.--Wafulz 03:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the mention in Criticism_of_wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage is more than sufficient. The only independent use of this word in notable works is [1]. 50 real hits on google wouldnt even justify a wiktionary article on this word. John Vandenberg 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be considered mean-spirited, but it's not strictly criticism of Wikipedia. It's more of an observation on systemic bias, with a disparaging title that mentions the arena. Neologism or not, people have been doing things like this for a long time, and it's at least helpful that somebody has invented a name, irrespective of how long specific rules will be remembered. --ToobMug 10:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that there are no reliable sources to indicate that this "invented name" has been widely accepted. - Chardish 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That simply doesn't matter. The article documents the practice. It's incidental that it borrows heavily from the site that tries to promote the name. Frankly, I think the name is stupid, but formalisation of the practice is interesting. Criticism of Wikipedia cites a Guardian article from 2004 with somebody doing essentially the same thing. The only contentious point, here, is the name. I could get into a semantic war on the interpretation of WP:NEO, but instead I'll skip to assuming that the rules are flexible (otherwise, why wouldn't pages like John Locke (Lost) be deleted for having no references whatsoever, and being about something than will be entirely unnotable in a few years?). The practice itself is notable. It's been happening for a long time. It is not criticism of Wikipedia, and so moving the content there is inappropriate. In general it would be ridiculous to delete content simply because there's no approved title for it to be shown under. Why not just roll with the neologism and see how the article turns out? --ToobMug 22:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If, as you say, it does not matter that the term is not in widespread use, then by that logic we can use Wikipedia to coin our own terms as long as the term refers to an unnamed practice that is common. There is a reason that Wikipedia's guideline for neologisms is "avoid neologisms." Please visit UrbanDictionary.com if you like the idea of people being able to coin terms based on their whims. - Chardish 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The word is "avoid", not "refuse". The page gives specific reasons for them to be avoided, and wikigroaning fails to meet them. This is a diversion, though. You appear to be deliberately missing my point so as to ensure that you have an argument to make. --ToobMug 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non notable piece in a newspaper and if there is anything useful put it in Criticisms of Wikipedia. Very reminiscent of the recently deleted First World Problems, SqueakBox 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Keep or Merge Wikigroaning is something we've all done - it just hadn't been given a name yet. Why delete an article about a useful reality check? Comparing topics is a simple way to identify Wikipedia's weaknesses, and humorously points out where we need to focus our efforts. It's worth remembering. Redshift9 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its value is in its utility in the creation of the encyclopedia, then it belongs in the Wikipedia: name space, not in articlespace. Powers ^T 02:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good suggestion. I've changed my vote.Redshift9 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with something awful article. I think this page is extremely important to Wikipedia but not really important to anyone else. I think it should be improved upon, it is very well referenced and there is plenty of information to "de-stub" it. I've always believed that wikipedia should contain all information even mildly important and this article goes beyond mildly important for wikipedia users. TostitosAreGross 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if Colbert said it, this wouldn't even be an issue. Deltaattack2go 69:82, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we really need to keep every non-notable thing that Colbert might have mentioned. : / - Chardish 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On top of that, if Colbert had said it, it would have a lot more widespread media coverage than it currently does. Truthiness gets G-hits of 827,000, while Wikigroaning gets much less. And as for Wikiality, that is a redirect, now. And is this more notable than Wikiality? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable enough. For example the article for Usonians doesn't exist and a Usonian is a redirect. Notability is greater for Usonian in my opinion, if John Dos Passos wrote a book using this term (as it is stated at Usonia article). And now, this could be a great occasion for another process of w*groaning. <grin>. It seems to me that if the deletion happens though it can get more attention and become quite notable. Google now gives 155,000 results for a simple search for the term. --Biblbroks's talk 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia until more material crops up. Circeus 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a sourced article about a notable fallacious argument against the concept of wikipedia. Mieciu K 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep it. I have personally heard and discussed this concept from multiple sources. I believe the term 'wikigroaning' is a quickly becoming part of our accepted lingo and reflects necessary commentary on technology and our (US) society. JasonHoekstra 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sceptical of the "merge with Criticism of Wikipedia" arguments. Not just because I don't believe that it is simply criticism (as I've already stated), but because I suspect that merges are frequently used as a method to stifle development or discussion of a topic. When inappropriately placed in the context of another article, it becomes much harder to elaborate on the original topic because the new content is off-topic for that article. Even the original transplant can be deleted or destroyed through a Chinese whispers process because it was inappropriate for the article. Moving this page to Criticism of Wikipedia kills any chance of the article developing discussion of, for example, motives, observations, consequences, similar practices and the like. This amounts to a vote for deletion, but under the pretence of compromise. If the content can be accepted as having notability, but the name is entirely unacceptable, then it needs to find a better parent or a new name. Perhaps one of the original contributors could restart the article with a more relevant focus and merge into that. --ToobMug 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placing a redirect at this page may alleviate that. Editors interested in contributing to knowledge on this topic will simply know where the right place to go is. Deletion of content is absolutely different than a merge. - Chardish 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again you're completely ignoring my point. Could you please reserve responses for comments that you have read and understood. --ToobMug 10:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that this topic belongs to the field 'Criticism of Wikipedia' (and I know not everyone here does): If this article is not good or notable enough to survive as a subsection in a parent topic, then why should it survive as its own article? Discussion of motives, etc. seems to me that it belongs in an article only if the topic itself is worthy of standing on its' own. You fail to mention the opposite - that a subsection might survive (will if it is notable,) and be expanded upon to the point where it must be its' own summary-style article. But at any rate, "If later..." arguments aren't all that appealing as you could postulate whatever you like, as I just did. LaughingVulcan 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good read, and it has reliable sources and does not appear to fail notability. Should be kept Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. A new word for a long-recognized concept. May deserve an article if it turns out to be more than the latest "look, Wikipedia is weird!"-spate of articles, but that will become apparent in time. - BanyanTree 03:18, 26 June 2007 (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.